Talk:Monsters, Inc.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Hooks, Ed (2005). "Monsters, Inc.". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055. 
• Paik, Karen (2007). "Monsters, Inc.". To Infinity and Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0811850129. 
• Velarde, Robert (2010). "Humor". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 61–73. ISBN 0830832971. 

Manga

I agree that the reference to the manga version should be here. I don't see the relevance of the lists and indexes of manga links. Those belong in an article about manga rather than here. I intend to do some trimming. Any thoughts before I do? Glenn6502 14:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Universe or World

I just watched "Monsters, Inc." yesterday. It seems to me that the monsters live on another world, whether in a parallel dimension or not is irrelevant. When they go through a closet door, they are coming in to our world using the door as a portal. This is similar to the stargates, though not as big nor nearly as noisy. Unless someone objects within a week, I'm going to change it back to talk about "world". Val42 18:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, though I got more of the idea like the labyrinth from Greek mythology. BelieVerr (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Animated shorts

What animated short(s) aired with this movie at any time? This includes in theters or on DVD/VHS. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It aired with For the Birds (which is unrelated to Monsters Inc.) in cinemas and, on the VHS and DVD release, it also featured Mike's New Car, in which Mike gets a new car (duh). Squidward2602 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

The article is tagged as needing a cleanup. I can't see anything wrong with it. Shall I remove the notice?

--JimmyTheWig 11:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just randomly stumbled upon this article, and it seems to me that it does need some cleanup, particularly in the "Plot" section. The plot summary is not concise at all, and would be very confusing to someone who has not seen the film. I have not seen the film in a couple years, so this was particularly evident to me as I read it. Anyways, I was just voicing my opinion as it seemed like no one was saying anything. I am agreeing with the cleanup notice. 71.112.229.9 03:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. We're watching it about three times a week with our two year old (lucky it's such a great film), so it was bound to make sense to me!

Will try and write something better when I have a chance.

--JimmyTheWig 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned the text up and added some details. Please let us know if the cleanup tag can be removed now. -Wilfredo Martinez 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

What are anybody's thoughts on trying to improve this article to FA standard? Naturally, the first step would be a peer review, then we can work on it. It would be nice to emulate the success of the Final Fantasy articles and have several Pixar articles featured. RMS Oceanic 10:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We can start with the style guidelines; add production notes, cast notes, etc. :)HoneyBee 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can i have a link to monster inc game

Original short film

Years before this movie came out I saw a (differently) animated short on IFC's short film showcase called Monsters, Inc and the concept was the same. Either this movie is based on that or Disney's got some splanin' to do.

Has anyone else seen the short I'm talking about? I'm trying to locate it (as well as reference materials) but am so far having little to no luck. Any thoughts/help?

Images

The images here need to be replaced; They're blurry and obviously photos taken of a TV. I can replace them soon with pictures off of my Monsters Inc. DVD with my computer. I just need to know how you attach the copyright information so the images won't be taken down. If you know, please reply and tell me, please!Catcher Block 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast Section

Is there much point in having the cast of all the different languages that MI was dubbed in on the English page? Shouldn't these be moved to that language's respective article? RMS Oceanic 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Billy Crystal as Michael "Mike" Wazowski paragraph there is a sentence that says, "He makes cameo appearances in Finding Nemo, Cars, WALL-E and Toy Story 3." Is that referring to Billy Crystal or Mike Wazowski? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.53.139 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

I heard a rumor about a sequel planed for release 2010 is this true

PS I don't want trouble

Sonicrules2 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules2

No, I'm pretty sure they aren't planning to make a sequel... at least not anytime soon. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this out, don't know if it's true!! http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestsequels/default.asp?c=4

Yeah, a sequel does appear to be in the works, but that wasn't really known back in April. And certainly not in 2007. Powers ^T 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed the link to the sequel as it just takes us back to this page through a redirect--TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• • The sequel is for November 2012, for those wondering. 69.228.89.220 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Check out the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) titled "Deciding what Wikipedia should accept without proof". Georgia guy (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs More

Do we need the mistakes/blips in this article? I don't think it's necessary. Put some production notes, change list to prose, fix the cast list, etc. Check the [[1]] to be sure. Can anyone help? HoneyBee 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DONE. Also removed newly created trivia section (SEE ABOVE, PEOPLE) which had dupes from Mistakes section.

As before, please integrate these into article text with citations ... or leave mistakes out as 'too much trivia.' -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes/Blips

• Towards the end of the film, when Mike and Sulley meet the CDA "number 00001", several different CDA monsters have the same number, 00112 - the same texture had been used on several models to reduce modeling time.
• In the very first scene, in the kid's room simulator, one angle shows a floor mat with a ball and a toy train set on it. However, when the first monster falls down on the mat, the train is no longer there and in its place are the jacks he falls on. The soccer ball appears to move, too.
• In the international version of the video/DVD several instances of written English text have been replaced with universal symbols (see Alternate Versions). However on several occasions they switch back to the original appearance. For instance: The "Standby/Scare" sign in the factory, the "Contamination alert" on the video wall during the first 2319 and the joke on the video wall in the final scene.
• Sulley makes Boo giggle a few times when they play hide and seek in the restroom, but the power never spikes and no lights blow out. (According to the commentary on the DVD, the creators realized this but chose not to address it.)
• When Sulley is playing hide and seek with Boo in the men's bathroom, Sulley walks into the stall where he thinks that she is. When Sulley turns around to see her outside of the stall, we see Boo and Boo's reflection in the mirror, but not Sulley's reflection. All that the camera sees is an empty stall and toilet... minus Sulley.
• In the opening scene when the monster comes through the door, he closes the door most of the way, but when the instructor does a review of what the student did wrong, the door is left mostly open.
• The scoreboard on the video wall sometimes shows decreased values for some monsters, for instance when Waternoose talks to Jerry and just before the first 2319.
• When in the ice cave, Mike picks up the last snow cone. As he first picks it up the snow is yellow, then it goes white and then back to yellow.
• When Mike walks away after congratulating Celia (in the beginning of the film) he passes a marking in the floor. In the next shot, viewed from above, he is much nearer her than in the shot before, which can be seen by the floor markings.
• When the C.D.A are scanning Monsters, Inc., a co-scarer opens the door that doesn't seem to be there but are there when Mike and Sulley open the door.
• When Mike is talking to Roz about his paper work, Mike's lip crosses through the counter at one point.
• When we see Mike wake up Sulley in the beginning, we see Sulley's alarm clock on his right-hand night stand, but later when Boo jumps into Sulley's bed the alarm clock is not there.
• When Sulley goes to put Boo back in her room, the clock above the door of the scare floor clearly indicates 5:50; when he runs out of the room it indicates 6:50.
• Mostly towards the end, we learn that laughing creates much more energy than screaming does. Near the end of the movie, while Sulley, Mike, and Boo are riding the doors, Boo screams, and starts to power up the door that they are riding. When Sulley and Mike make Boo laugh very short after, it powers up every door in the large room they are in, or at least what we see of them, implying that laughter is hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than screaming. Yet right before the ending, after Mike gloats about how funny he is, Sulley says that laughing is only 10 times more powerful than screaming.
• In the scene where Mike and Sulley are escaping from Randall through the doors, right before they enter the door laying on the ground that leads to Paris, you can see a wrench in the background that resembles Randall, himself. (Or a serpent in general.)
• In the scene where Sulley puts Boo back in to her room, she hands Sulley some toys, including a doll that resembles Jesse (from Toy Story 2) and a fish that looks like Nemo and the ball from Toy Story and Toy Story 2.

Trivia

• Before the scene where Roz shreds Boo's door, Boo is seen giving Sulley some toys. One of the toys appears to be Jessie from Toy Story 2 and another was an orange clownfish, perhaps representing Nemo or Marlin from Finding Nemo, despite the fact that it was still two years away from release.

• In the scene where Mike and Sulley are escaping from Randall through the doors, right before they enter the door laying on the ground that leads to Paris, you can see a wrench in the background that resembles Randall, himself. (Or a serpent in general.)

• When Randall is in the trailer, on the far left, you can see the Pizza Planet truck from Toy Story and Toy Story 2.

Looking through these, the *only* trivia point of interest is how they mic'd Mary Gibbs for Boo and used her drawings in the film. That would go in the production section but they NEED citation. The rest of this trivia/mistakes can be left to sites that deal with that information better (Imbd, moviemistakes.com). --Masem 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Mistakes/Blips section appears to be a word-for-word (even down to the order of the items) copy of the Goofs section of the IMDb entry, thus a copyright violation. -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Recurring Gags

• "2319!" The gag used 3 times on one monster, and once on a CDA worker involving contamination by contact with a human child's possessions and the cataclysmic and excessive methods of cleaning the contamination and its immediate area. The term 2319 refers to the twenty third and nineteenth letters of the alphabet. W and S respectively, and relate directly to the offending article of the child's clothing. Namely a White Sock.

Are you kidding me? I mean, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.8.140 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is actually an inventive way of thinking about things, and even though it really isn't important enough to go in the article, it shouldn't be put down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.224.135 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In at least some countries the title of the film was changed to avoid the fact that "Inc." is a suffix that an American company would have - in Slovakia they called it Monsters s.r.o. (which is a Slovak company suffix). Making changes to the title for foreign language versions is common practice and not notable, but did the same thing happen for other English-speaking countries that don't use "Inc."? So was the British version Monsters Ltd. or Monsters plc. ? If so then it should go in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.130 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was called monsters inc here in the uk. Plugwash (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Production

In the Production section it says something like "...completed a draft treatment in February, 2007." I am 97% sure that Monsters, Inc. was completed long before that time, but I don't know what the true date should read, can someone help by fixing that? Jashack (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just 97% sure? That is obviously incorrect since the film was released in 2001. This was added by PBP. I've asked him/her to respond to this. kollision (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't notice that. The text is taken from the Pixar Wiki and it looks like I didn't read it very carefully. I don't know what the real date should be; maybe some Googling will shed some light on this. PBP (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kollision and PBP for resolving this issue, and obviously i was making a joke when i put 97%, but i didn't want to sound cocky by putting 100%. Thanks again! Jashack (talk) 6:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Roz

Roz is mentioned in the end of plot section as reaveling herself to be the head of the CDA, but she isn't mentioned anywhere else so people who haven't watched the movie don't know who she is. She has to be added at the beginnng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.126.97 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd annual DEG Japan Awards/Blu-ray Prizes

This won an award in the DEG; see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-18/ponyo-bakemonogatari-conan-win-japanese-bd-prizes --Gwern (contribs) 15:02 20 February 2010 (GMT)

Teenage Boo

Can anyone prove Miranda Cosgrove will voice teenage Boo? I noticed there wasn't any citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.132 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing away an hour's work

Thanks for throwing away an hour's work, Coder Dan. Who's to decide what's "unimportant detail"? Many of my changes were to tighten the existing text by saying the same things with fewer words. Could you have not thrown out the baby with the bathwater? Karn (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(Moved unproductive argument to User talk:Coder Dan#Thanks for throwing away an hour's work.)

Can you guys take your discussion to one of your talk pages? This isn't helping the quality of the article at all and I'm sick of reading from my watchlist. BOVINEBOY2008 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Coder Dan (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Monsters, Inc. 2

Why isn't there an article about the sequel? Hashbron (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because some Wikipedians think it's just a rumor. Please feel free to create one if you can prove it isn't just a stub. Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please only create an article for Monsters University if it satisfies guidelines WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University voice cast

I saw it's written that "The feature will be directed by Dan Scanlon, written by Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton, and produced by John Lasseter and Kori Rae. It was also announced that John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi, Jennifer Tilly, Bob Peterson, Frank Oz, John Ratzenberger and Bonnie Hunt will be reprising their roles."

The sources given only confirm that John Goodman and Billy Crystal to return. ALL the other ones are absolutely not mentionned. In the same way, the sources given do not give a name for the writers. Therefore, I will coninue to remove these names unless a source is given. I'm not familiar with this wiki system, and I hope I am not doing an error.--65.92.142.174 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Proof that I'm new, I forgot to log in. This message was written by me.--Gray Catbird (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

Reverted 71.179.9.211's edits and gave him level 1 warning. 74.12.122.105 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) (Thomas)

Monsters University

It's kind of surprising that there's still no article on Monsters University. Even http://disney.go.com/movies/new-upcoming (the official site) references the movie as coming in June 2013, so this film definitely can't be just a rumor. Georgia guy (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You still haven't actually read WP:NFF yet, have you? - BilCat (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", but Monsters University has been confirmed; the above URL (which is official) mentions it. Georgia guy (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NFF: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any official proof that Monsters University is still in pre-production?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got that the wrong way around! To meet the guideline, we need a source that shows "that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process" - you seem to be suggesting that all we need is to prove that it isn't not out of pre-production! -Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And can you do so?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No - I can't find a reliable source to show that it is out of pre-production. Therefore we have to assume that it isn't until a source can be found. Once we have a reliable source, only then will Monsters University meet the notability criteria set down at WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is called accepting something without proof. Specifically, you're saying that Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that Monsters University is still in the middle of pre-production. Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow! That's exactly what you're suggesting!!! You're saying that as we don't know whether or not it is out of the pre-production stage yet, we should assume that it is? What nonsense! Last thing we knew, it was in pre-production. Until we find can find a reliable source to show that production has progressed, we mustn't assume that it is anything but still in the pre-production stage. I'd suggest a read of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Verifiability. Find the source, then we have something to talk about... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a few months ago though. We should probably hear news about this film's progress sometime within the next 6 months. Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Great! Let's hope there is some news soon, and then we will have a source to satisfy WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, we're about the same distance from this film's release as we were from Wreck-It Ralph's release when I created an article for that film. I'll be surprised if no source is found within a month. Georgia guy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines state that you need a reliable source stating that it is out of pre-production stages. The guidelines DO NOT state that you need to be able to disprove such a claim before preventing you from making an article. You can make an article if you have found a reliable source acceptable by wikipedia's standards that demonstrates the film is out of pre-production. Otherwise you will need to wait. The onus is not on wikipedia to disprove your claim, the onus is on you to prove it with reliable sources. 69.196.168.189 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Monsters University

This page already exists as a well formatted and cited article. Yet it is currently being redirected here. Although the redirect has been removed multiple times, a few editors continue to redirect the page with the justification of a previous consensus to merge the article into this one because sources couldn't confirm that production had began. That was 10 months ago, and sources have now confirmed that production has begun. Several attempts in the last month have restored the page, only to be reverted, usually by a single editor who continues to use the nearly year old consensus as justification. Most of the concerns in the previous consensus were that production had not begun and that there were not enough sources. Those sources have been found, but the reverting editor is now using another justification for restoring the redirect. The reason given is that the production is not notable. But this was not a major concern of most of the participants in the previous discussion. The concern was that there were no sources to confirm that the production has begun. It has begun, several months ago.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that it did not meet the notability guideline. As there have been no new developments or coverage since then, it still does not meet the guideline. Once we see persistent coverage, then notability will be established. Just because production has commenced, it is not automatically notable per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was that the article did not merit notability per the guideline, because sources could not confirm that production had begun. Sources now confirm this, yet now you add another justification that was not part of the previous consensus. That was a year ago, its time to move on from that, and stop using that as justification for deleting the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than attack my opinion personally, let's just see if there is consensus from other editors that notability guidelines have been met regarding persistent coverage and whether consensus is that it is now time to split to its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)