Talk:The Last Unicorn (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject ITC Productions
This article is part of the ITC Entertainment Distributions WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed and structured guide to ITC Distributions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated C-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 project 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Japanese cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Animation / American / Films (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Stop moaning about Mia Farrow[edit]

Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View. Whoever keeps writing in things about how bad Mia Farrow is, please stop. Darien Shields 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Quality Level?[edit]

An informative article, although it could definitely use some spit-and-polish in order to conform to a higher standard of quality. I made a minor grammatical change (changed the word "wannabe"). I'm going to refrain from touching anything else as I'm not familiar enough with the subject. Perhaps someone with a greated breadth of experience in the subject matter could throw in their own two cents? JustinStroud 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Links getting a bit much?[edit]

I noticed two links added in the past week or so- one to a page that's a Tribute to Lady Amalthia, and one about the songs of the films. The Tribute site is very well composed, and quite professional in appearance, while the songs site is a very clumsy (no offence) Geo Cities site. However, I'm just not sure if either has the content to warrant being linked. I dunno. Maybe I'm just being stubborn or something. What do you all think? (Darien Shields 15:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Possible Allusion?[edit]

I while reading an assignment for a Critical theory class, I saw the name Smerdis, who was mentioned as an "imposter magician". I looked it up on Wikipedia:Smerdis

Does anyone think this could possibly be related to Schmendrick? On one hand, the names are arguably only vaguely similiar (Smerdis=not a super lot like Schmendrick) but the theme of impostors and Magi is there (Ie, Schmendrick is seemingly an impostor or "not real" magician), and the names are similiar enough that it could be related. Any thoughts? -Sailor_Titan

I think that there may be a reasonably good chance... that name isn't exactly a common one, so it had to have come from somewhere. It's possible that it was just thought up out of the blue, but it's not very likely. Perhaps it could be mentioned as a possible linguistic link. Esn 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter S. Beagle states that there is no connection between "Smerdis" and his character Schmendrick. The name Schmendrick is both a play on the comic strip magician character "Mandrake" and a Yiddish word meaning "a fool, the boy sent to do a man's job." User:Connorfc 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

25th Anniversary DVD / February 2007[edit]

I updated the information under DVD releases to expand on the reported content and nature of the U.S. DVD release slated for next month. I phrased it as speculative, since we obviously can't verify the final content of the disk until it comes out on the market. After the release, someone will need to go back and edit it again to bring it into line with whatever the actual quality/content of the release turns out to be, and also change the phrasing to indicate it as something that's already happened, rather than a planned event.--Almagesh 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Music[edit]

On iTunes the Last Unicorn Remix CD (entitled "The Last Unicorn 2005") is credited to Da Sylver and DeeFour. I made the change, but I assumed that these are the European DJs mentioned in the text. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pepsidude 22:33, 18 April 2007


In Some library's...[edit]

I've noticed that in some library's, this movie is featured in the Children's Section, even though it has swears and whatnot. This is obviously some kind of misconception that the film is for young children. Should there be an area in the article that states this wrong doing?

The film only contains one instance of the word "damn," which still constituted a G rating back when it was originally released.Yoshiaki Abe (talkcontribs) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. There are two "damns". Yoshiaki Abe 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

Since the film version is very very close to the original novel, both in plot and in themes, I think it certainly qualifies for a merge, especially since a considerably large plot summary is repeated on both pages. I do NOT mind merging the articles myself due to subject familiarity if that is necessary. I also agree with JustinStroud (above) in that this article could certainly stand to be polished up. That's no problem for me. Just someone tell me if I have the authority to merge them or not. If we do the merge, I will do everything I can to get the merged article to FA status.Yoshiaki Abe (talkcontribs) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's best to just leave the articles as separate instead of merging them, seeing as the film article is long enough as it is. SilentAria talk 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, but about half the page contains pretty much the same content as the novel. Not word-for-word, but it seems like a waste to me to have it twice, especially since both pages are still labeled as Start-Class and certainly need work because of that. I would very much like to see a single Last Unicorn page that actually looks decent and on it's way to FA status. Any other opinions? Yoshiaki Abe 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, merging two start class articles is not equivalent to having a decent article that would be on its way to FA status. There are several things missing in the separate articles as it is...for example, the film article is still missing information on production, development, reception, and casting; and the book article is missing information on publication history, allusions, reception, and more. If you were to merge these articles and eventually include all the necessary information for both the film and the book, you'd end up with an article that's too long and have to split them again. You may want to refer to the article guidelines found in the following pages for reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. SilentAria talk 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: The Films WikiProject also has a sub-project specifically made to split articles about books and films based on books into separate articles. You can take a look at it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books. Films based on books and the books they were based on are supposed to be in separate articles, since they're two separate productions. Movie tie-ins are an exception to this standard, of course. SilentAria talk 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. I didn't realize there was a separate Films Based on Books project. Then I guess the merge is off, and I'll just do what I can separately to add information. Thanks! Yoshiaki Abe 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I think you should merge. Go ahead! The article was started in 2003, but it wasn't spilt untill 2006. They really should be merged, it's just ridiculous not to. 68.220.175.237 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not ridiculous not to. Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books as well as my explanation above. SilentAria talk 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. But I think a merge would be good. And the film does have production and reception sections, and the plot for the film is too long. Can you point to some major examples of or and unsourced statments on the article? Someone should cut down the plot on this article and add to the one on the book. C'mon, they're not that different are they? I'll reply to your message on my talk page as well. 68.220.190.205 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how a merge can be good; if you want to include all the important details for the film and the book (you can see the recommended structure for film and book articles in the links I posted), you'd wind up splitting the articles anyway, seeing as putting everything in one article would wind up making the article too long. Saying that "they're not that different" isn't enough to justify the merge; the as I mentioned before, film and the book are two separate productions. They're not like movie tie-ins that are part of a single production. And see, the article was already split in 2006. There's really no reason to merge them again.
Like I said in your talk page, the following sections are unsourced (and potentially OR): the entire release section (except for the third paragraph where I added a source and the fifth paragraph), parts of the soundtrack section (that bit about In-Mood and the European DJs needs sourcing, and so does the statement "The album was never released in the United States"), the entire Legal Controversy section, and the Allusions section. Allusions are important, but if they are unsourced and/or just based on the opinion of fans, they shouldn't be included in the article. You may want to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for Film and Book articles (which, again, I posted above) as well as other Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE before making any other changes to the article, and please don't forget to include an edit summary when you edit the articles. --SilentAria talk 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: The film also has info on the cast and since when are allusions that important anyway? The film has an allusions section but I think that may be one of the "or" parts of it. 68.220.190.205 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Anime?[edit]

Considering the large number of Japanese artists working on the film's animation, could the film be considered anime? Most of the animation staff later went on to work for Studio Ghibli, which says a lot. I would personally categorise the film as "anime by animation, not anime by everything else". And this being Wikipedia, the question really boils down to can we find a reliable source that identifies the film as anime, or relates the film to anime. Any thoughts?--Mátyás (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just now I reverted an edit by an anonymous editor naming the film anime, so if someone could give us a clue as to how we should go on ascertaining whether this is anime or not, I personally would be most grateful.--... there's more than what can be linked. 13:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
If a reliable source has called the film anime then it may be appropriate to call the film anime...until such a source can be provided though, I don't think it's appropriate to call the film such. Doniago (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
So far I found this: [1] "Lady Amalthea, the unicorn looks unnervingly like an anime character" and [...] "As a result, The Last Unicorn is now considered to be an important work in proto-anime." --... there's more than what can be linked. 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't look to be a reliable source. The reviewer's bio doesn't mention any serious credentials in film study and may be entirely self-written. Her claim that TLU is proto-anime is also somewhat dubious as she doesn't say from where she's drawing that information other than her own beliefs. I'd like to see something a bit less dubious. Doniago (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Band Name???[edit]

Was the name Molly Grue the inspiration for the band name Motly Crue? Jdaniels15 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The article about the band discusses the origin of the name. Doniago (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Quality/Source of 'Production' Section[edit]

The 'Production' section requires extensive editing and removal of 'dramatic tone' in order to conform to NPOV. It reads as if it were simply "cut and pasted" wholesale from two editorials. The entire section includes only four source references, two of which are the same article, a third being from an interview from the author. The fourth is from a personal article on how the book impacted a life experience. Three of the references are repeated for entire paragraphs within the section. 98.247.101.39 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not be bold and make the changes you believe are merited? Just curious. Doniago (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)