Talk:Ice Age (2002 film)

==Article Title==Noah Rael as Sid the Sloth

This entry should be Ice Age (movie). If you doubt this, look at "What links here." A linked reference to "Ice Age" in text normally links to the Ice Age, not an animated feature. Wetman 20:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then those links should be fixed, not the title of this article. There is no reason for this page to have a disambiguation when it is not necessary. Article titles are case-sensitive (except for the first letter), so we might as well make use of it. — Timwi 13:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense is to have the primary title not related to the main event, but a B movie about it. It needs to be moved back to Ice Age (film)or Ice Age (movie). I'll change it if no one else does. Pollinator 15:33, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Box Office and Critical Reception

I'd like to know how this movie did in the box office, aswell, I'd like to know what critics thought of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.15.120 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrat Inside the Plot

Scrat should be written on the plot because he appears couple of times in the movie and please write him in the plot he's written in the Ice Age: The Meltdown page plot and if Scrat is written in the plot please don't delete it.

---

Please keep this article at Ice Age. There no good reason for

1. adding an unnessary disambiguation parenthesis to the title
2. redirecting users to a place they probably didn't want to go to
3. encouraging wrong linking

Thanks. — Timwi 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This belongs at Ice Age (movie) to avoid confusion with the real event. I proposed the change, waited some time, and no one objected. I am going to move it back within the next few days. It seems to be a case of confusion of entertainment with reality. Pollinator 02:35, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Argh! What is going on. I assert (on the grounds that reality gets precedence over fiction) that:

• Ice Age (movie) describes the movie
• Ice age is the glaciological/climatological phenomenom
• Ice Age redirects to Ice age

Thank you for this sensible move. Wetman 08:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AMEN! Pollinator 12:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

and I've changed it so that is so.

(ps: thanks - I think - to Wetman for fixing my fix properly...)

If you are looking for an article about the ice age, "Ice Age" is not "spelled" right - it's "Ice age". Agree? (WMC: yes) Then there is only one article with the title "Ice Age" - the one about the movie.

If you really consider these ambiguous, I think the disambiguation is wrong. "Ice Age" should NOT redirect to "Ice age". It should either redirect to "Ice Age (movie)", or link to both.

(William M. Connolley 09:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Yes, thats poss - Ice Age could well be a disambig page instead of redir to Ice age.

Personally, I agree with Timwi: "Ice Age" should contain the article about the movie. You could make "See also"-links to solve the actual problem. I just made such a link from Junit to JUnit, as I think many people make that spelling error.

(William M. Connolley 09:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I strongly disagree: Ice Age can't be the movie page. What next? "Jesus of Nazareth" becomes a link to the movie, with a little note on it saying "oh and by the way..."? But I agree Ice Age could be disambig.

Myplacedk 08:48, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

The Ice Age in adult discussion is the most recent glaciation, the Wisconsinian or whatever, one of the sequences of ice ages that characterize the Pleistocene. Ice Age (in italics) is an animated film geared for pre-teens. Have some perspective! Wetman 09:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the article about glaciation was titled "Ice Age", this discussion would not exist. But it's not, so it does. Are you suggesting renaming the glaciatin article? In that case, it would be very simple: The glaciation article would contain a disambiguation link to "Ice Age (movie)" (or similar). Myplacedk 09:27, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Homosexuality???

I dont remember these references, where in the film was this? Raemie 17:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There was some minor refrences in the movie, like the brontotheres (the rhinos, long horns Brontothere, butterfly-shaped horns, Embolotherium) where eating with each other and Sid ruined it all by stepping into their "salad" with a foot covered in Glyptodon poop. The two brontotheres appear to hang out with each other a lot, but I don't think that they have a crush on eachother, just pals. GBA 05:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud, did it occur to anyone that those bozos were probably brothers? And I ought to know. I've got two brothers myself! Ben 10 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does say it was "conservative christians" who raised the fuss...did they ever make any sense? :P Takeshi357 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think anyone has anything against the movie about evolution or homosexuality. Its all just a big joke in the movie. I've never heard anyone having a beef against it for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.89.104 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 May 2006

I don't know who you are. From now on, try to add four ~s at the end of your comment GBA 04:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the movie: Sid:Acctually, this baby belongs to us. Diego: Us? You two are a bit of and odd couple." Even though Manny objected to the whole "us" thing, they were definetly prodding at that.

This is ridiculous. Do you know what "joke" is? :P SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{15:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)}.

Requirements

This article will need the film poster like most film articles.

Sid

Played by grammy winning actor Noah Michael Rael.

Sid is too small and weak to be a Megatherium, thus dictating that he is of a subspecies which is about the size of a pig.

There were other ground sloths smaller than Megatherium in North America, like Glossotherium, for example. The movie don't says that Sid is a Megatherium any time.

I don't think Sid is a Megatherium at all, he either has to be a three-toed sloth or a smaller relative like Nothrotheriops. GBA 05:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's not a modern sloth, thank you. He must be a small species of ground sloth.61.230.78.58 12:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have it! He is a Hapalops! He is about three or four feet tall and he sleeps in a tree so he must be!KnowledgeLord 21:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging the Manny Article

Just to say I've really expanded the article on manny, so it's no longer a stub and (hopefully) no longer needs to be merged with the main ice age (film) article. --Sidthesloth 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

just say no

Inaccuracies

How is calling the saber tooths 'tiger's an inaccuracy? It may be improper in many places, but this is an American film and the name saber tooth cat is never heard here. BioTube 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'Cause Smilodons are not tigers. There's no such thing as a saber-tooth tiger. Dora Nichov 09:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm telling you the way it works here where the film was made. So what if they aren't technically tigers? Saber-toothed cat just isn't used here. Why don't we start saying aluminium and labour are incorrect? BioTube 21:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's all right if you call them saber-tooth tigers, but not just TIGERS. That's completely different. Dora Nichov 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the setting, what else would they be talking about? BioTube 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dora Nichov 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The film doesn't say that humans are incapible of speech, I think Deigo's quote was due to the animals not understanding human speech.(AndrewAnorak 10:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Huh? Dora Nichov 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When Diego chases Nadia and Roshan near the waterfall is clearly seen that Diego walks over the water without any problem, but in the sequel film is obviously stated that Diego is affraid of be in contact with water. That goof sure was not consider since if Nadia realizes that she would be safe within the river, then she didn't need to jump into the waterfall. This shoud be included into the inaccuracies of this film (or in the sequel, maybe). Manuel Cuevas 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a factual inaccuracy. Dora Nichov 10:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fanatics for technical nomenclature (as that is what it is--there is no question of "accuracy" involved) ought to give a moment's thought to the millions of human beings who do not inhabit their world. There are millions of people who know what a saber-toothed tiger is: they saw pictures of them in books at school--who have never heard the word "smilodon" and will never remember it. An article for the general public ought to be written in language the general public understands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.244.61 (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Minor Character Names

• Hi! I just want to let you know that I know the names of some characters who's names weren't mentioned but were said in books.

Roshan (the baby)

Runar (Roshan's father)

Nadia (Roshan's mother)

Dab (the head dodo)

Oscar (a smilodon from Soto's pack)

Zeke (a high voiced smilodon from Soto's pack)

Lenny (a fat smilodon from Soto's pack)

Jennifer (the purple sloth that Sid and Roshan mud bathed with)

Rachel (the orange sloth that Sid and Roshan mud bathed with)

Mmm, don't forget Eddie, the glypodont.

Don't you recall?

"So where's Eddie?"

"Oh, he said something about being on the verge of an evoultionary breakthrough"

--KnowledgeLord 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't believe this section makes much sense:

"Ice Age was rated PG by the MPAA, but is re-rated PG-13 by the MPAA."

Should it be:

"Ice Age was originally rated PG by the MPAA, but was later re-rated as a PG-13."

A reference would be good. — MovieJunkie ^Talk! 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Innacuracies?

The movie has talking mammoths for crying out loud. Having an 'innacuracies' section is illogical. Lots42 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion took place at Over the Hedge (film) - as was mentioned in the talk pages, something cannot be inaccurate from reality if it is not meant to be an imitation of reality in the first place. In these movies, you generally have cartoon physics and trying to list every single difference would take up a massive article. Trying to explain inaccuracies between the film and cartoon physics is just being silly - as a cartoon, they don't need to have a consistent rulebook.

Also, a trivia section by another name is still a trivia section. It attracts unimportant facts and takes focus away from the article - possibly spoiling the humour in the film. --Sigma 7 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now we have a different Innacuracies section, which I still say is not needed. I doubt that the characters care or comprehend what the humans refer to them as. Lots42 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IceAge.png

Image:IceAge.png 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Names

Will you people PLEASE stop fighting over the scientific names for the creatures. If you two or three or however many there are keep reverting each other, I by god will call in nuetral parties. Lots42 (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lenny - a different species?

According to this article, the "tiger" called Lenny is a Homotherium while the other "tigers" (Diego, Soto, etc.) are Smilodon. I think all these characters belonged to the same species (either Homotherium or Smilodon, in the movie neither scientific name is mentioned) - Don golgi (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To see the logic behind this, I suggest a look to the official guide for the movie. The guide says, and I quote:

"He's actually a rare scimitar cat, so don't call him a saber-toothed tiger-it might make him mad." There it is. --KnowledgeLord (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am confused

"Extinct by the time the movie was set"? There was no time the movie was set. It was just a generic time. Lots42 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the end, Scrat melts out of the block of ice "20,000 years later", which is supposedly the present day. - Don golgi (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly Lots42 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A Mammoth Christmas Special

There's a lock on the article, so couldn't add info on "Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas Special" to Sequels section. 25 minutes. Bought at Wal-Mart today. Has preview of Ice Age: Continental Drift and a Music Video. Haven't read a review. --Sniperscout (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Found info "Ice Age: A Mammoth Christmas" @ article Ice Age (film series)" Think article here should add @ top Sequels section:

Main article: Ice Age (film series)

--Sniperscout (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Scrat

The Scrat subplot is nearly as long as the rest of the film plot section! I'm pressed for time or I'd edit it... Lots42 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

Please change the wording for Ice Age Continental Drift it states that the movie had not been released while in reality it has been

Marbar26 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

needs editing badly

The synopsis of the movie drifts awkwardly between past tense and present tense, and three times uses "there" to mean "their". There are also at least three dangling participles. Take a look at this passage:

As Soto closes in for the kill on Manfred, Diego leaps and stops Soto, who wounds Diego in the process. Manfred, in vengeance, knocks Soto into a rock wall, causing several sharp icicles to fall on Soto, killing him. Manfred and Sid go up to an injured Diego...

So far all in the present tense, in normal story-telling fashion.

...and where to to go on with out them....

Something is missing here.

...So Manfred and Sid went to return Roshan to his father and happily reunited.

Now suddenly we're using the past tense. Also, "and happily reunited" does not make sense.

...After saying goodbye to Rosha, Diego recovers and rejoins Manfred and Sid...

Now we are back to using the present tense. Also, here is one of those dangling participles: it suggests that Diego has just said goodbye to Rosha, whereas in fact it is Manfred and Sid who have done so.

Just a few lines to demonstrate how much editing this article needs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.135.244.61 (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC) 

I agree, so I have reverted to the version before those errors were added. I think it is better now.--Carniolus (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Figures Mis-wording

The box office figures in this article are listed as "$176,387,405 million" and "$383,257,136 million", which appears to be an error, as that would indicate a box office figure of over $383 trillion. Removal of the word "million" from both instances would solve this. CentrallyProcessed (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks!--Carniolus (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)