Talk:Despicable Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Despicable Me (single))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Animation / American / Films / Computer (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Sources to be used[edit]

Please populate this when possible and use for article.

Facebook Plot Information[edit]

Saw this at Facebook and I'm hoping that this will be reliable information. Outline:In a happy suburban neighborhood surrounded by white picket fences with flowering rose bushes, sits a black house with a dead lawn. Unbeknownst to the neighbors, hidden beneath this home is a vast secret hideout. Surrounded by a small army of minions, we discover Gru (voiced by Steve Carell), planning the biggest heist in the history of the world. He is going to steal the moon (Yes, the moon!) in Universal’s new 3-D CGI feature, Despicable Me.

Gru delights in all things wicked. Armed with his arsenal of shrink rays, freeze rays, and battle-ready vehicles for land and air, he vanquishes all who stand in his way. Until the day he encounters the immense will of three little orphaned girls who look at him and see something that no one else has ever seen: a potential Dad.

The world’s greatest villain has just met his greatest challenge: three little girls named Margo, Edith and Agnes. minespatch 1:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

That's the official plot summary from the website. 17.456.759.754.862.8556. (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Trailer?[edit]

When I saw Where The Wild Things Are, there was not a trailer for "Despicable Me." Well, at least not a second trailer... Was it with some screenings and not with others? --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • As a movie theater employee who occasional has to spend whole shift selling refreshments during the trailers of various movies, I can tell you for a fact that different showings of different movies have different trailers. Specifically, each print has its own set of trailers that show during each showing of that print. Ruby 1x2 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the first one when I was watching Land of The Lost.--Daisy13103 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New Trailer[edit]

There's a new trailer out, with new plot information. Ruby 1x2 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Character Designs[edit]

The lead characters Gru and Vector bear a striking resemblance to Microsoft supremos Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates. Is this deliberate? Mrstonky (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And all the tech Vector uses bear a strong resemblance to Apple's products. Also, Mr. Perkins looks exactly like Pointy-haired_Boss from Dilbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have taken their character design from Dr Who Tom Baker years: --Mike Spenard (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Box office[edit]

I understand how (you) User:Active Banana are trying to follow the rules but too much has been removed from the Box Office, in trying to avoid editors POV and and reduce hyperbole there is insufficient perspective and context of any kind.

The figures need some adjectives to explain to normal readers that a 42% drop is "respectable" or "only". Without some description readers not already familiar with how much a film would normally drop cannot know if that is a significant drop or about the normal level of a drop, when in fact it is a strong or respectable performance to only drop that much when other films drop by far more.

This change is particularly confusing since if you look at the edit with the summary only is POV commentary only a few edits earlier User:Active Banana changed the wording from respectable to 'only'.

The referenced article says (and as I said in my edit summary) Despicable Me Dominates. I thought success was a fair paraphrase of that. If you think a different wording is more appropriate please do find something to express that or if necessary use a direct quote, but I try to paraphrase and simplify rather than using direct quotes.

The whole reason the Box Office Mojo news articles are referenced and not just the figures on the main box office mojo page for Despicable Me is so that editors can provide more context without it being their own WP:OR or WP:POV because it is acceptable to include the point-of-view presented by the article. -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF we provide sourced facts and let the reader determine their opinion. Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
and to clarify [2] was a lazy edit on my part - I was only looking at the fact that the IP had inserted the inappropriate "hugely successful" commentary and just reverted the whole thing rather than removing content that was not appropriate in either the original or the IP version. I later removed the "only" [3] that Horkana mentions me inserting. Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Giving only the raw numbers with so little context fails the fundamental principle of improving the article and informing readers. It is a lot harder to provide adequate perspective than lazily removing any and all points of view even that the news article were put there to support.
In practical terms the first news article ("Despicable Me Dominates") is no longer needed to support the intro (and technically the lead doesn't need to repeat anything properly referenced in the main article). Also the second news article is not really used either, the bare listings of weekend totals off the main Despicable Me coves it. If other editors agree with User:Active Banana then there's not much point using more than the one link to Box Office Mojo.
I'll wait for 3rd party opinions before I do any further work on that section again. -- Horkana (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The "placing in context" HAS to be done by and attributed to the third party source. "X movie grossed Y in its first week which BOM called a "weak showing" compared to the previous animated 3D movies." Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


After the girls are taken back to the orphanage, Gru awakes in his bed and after flipping back the blanket, he gets frightened by the sight of the toy head (for hairdressing). Is this a reference to the film "The Godfather" where a film producer founds the severed head of his horse in his bed? --Animiertes Fleisch (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that as well and I'm sure you're right, but it's not worth mentioning in the article. --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Minions are yellow skinned, alluding North Asians (China, japan, Koreas, Mongols, Manchus etc), while the main characters are obviously Caucasian. The whole characterisation is a subjugating NLP levelled at the yellow skins, evenm as all this talk about China being a 'factory floor' is just as bad. If the minions had been multicoloured, and the main villians less Caucasian, China would have allowed this to be aired. Thats the problem with all these English movies and animation movies, too much propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Speaking as a Caucasian, I perceive nothing at all "North Asian" in the appearance and characterisation of the Minions. Their speech is a melange of European languages with a preponderance of French, and their mannerisms and culture appear "Western". Their skin colour is irrelevant, as they are explicitly genetically engineered beings rather than being from any "natural" racial group: given their passion for bananas, perhaps they possess some vegetable genes! Why would the makers of a children's comedy film be concerned with promulgating a dubious (and very out-dated) socio-political message? {The poster formerly known as} — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings[edit]

I was reading the article and was surprised to learn that there were other soundtrack albums ... especially since no other website knows anything about them. The data is probably worth keeping, but I reworked the section's information to try to make it clear they don't exist. - Salamurai (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary seems extremely long to me[edit]

I think that wikipedia is not the place for a blow by blow, scene by scene, description of the plot of films.

Four or Five paragraphs seems right to me.

I want to take this article and edit out about two-thirds of the "plot" section.

Eckeck77 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've not reduced the length of the "Plot" section, yet. Before you do, the discussion should move beyond personal opinion: are there guidelines for this? How long are plot summaries in other Wikipedia articles about films? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently nobody is updating the "Plot" section, or addressing its length. But I agree with above person. It is quite lengthy. While I'd say that official guidelines for length are not necessary, a play by play as it is written is a bit excessive. An edit would be preferred in this case, especially with a sequel coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:27, October 2, 2012
I don't see why the coming of a sequel is relevant. Each movie will be it's own stand-alone creation with it's own plot. They should each be entered onto WP with equal footing. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The plot summary appears to be between 400 and 700 words as is appropriate per WP:FILMPLOT. The problem may be that the rest of the article is not developed enough for the summary to be a relatively small portion of it, such as at American Beauty (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar correction (Section "Plot")[edit]

Please replace "the quicker the effect's of the shrink ray wear off" with "the quicker the effects of the shrink ray wear off" (remove apostrophe from effects) (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Girls Scout - schmerl schowt[edit]

They weren't selling Girl Scout Cookies - just cookies. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. I've changed it. It was a parody of Girl Scout cookies, not actually them. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Typo in reference[edit]

The second paragraph of the Critical reception subsection starts:

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three out of four stars, saying "You don't need to know more except that directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud are expert are springing surprises from the ingenious script by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio."

This is indeed what the source says, but he presumably meant "... are expert at springing surprises ...". Does the second "are" deserve a [sic]? -- ToE 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Thinking of England: I reviewed WP:SIC, and it does look like we should use that here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Other options would be to put the correct word in brackets, "... are expert [at] springing surprises ..." or simply to correct it, "... are expert at springing surprises ..." per MOS:QUOTE's "... trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important", however I am concerned that this trivial "wordo" may not qualify as a typo or spelling error. We should seek the best balance between preserving the integrity of the quote, not bringing undue attention to the error, and avoiding text which prompts our readers into wasting their time trying to correct what they may perceived as Wikipedia's error. -- ToE 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Another option is to just paraphrase the quote. We could say that Travers said the directors were skilled at "springing surprises" from the screenwriters' "ingenious" screenplay. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Either way its fine, or we could just remove it altogether. Koala15 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a strong preference amongst the options; I went ahead with the paraphrase. -- ToE 01:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Way too much in the critical reception[edit]

Other movies are given a couple of quotes by movie critics. It just seems to drag on and on here. (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)