Talk:Monsters vs. Aliens

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dagon the Missing Link

Where has the name "Dagon" come from? I can find good sources for "The Missing Link", but the leaked trailer doesn't mention "Dagon", and Googling doesn't turn up anything reliable. Alabama Moon (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. The official site doesn't mention "Dagon", so I'll change it to what it says there. --Alabama Moon (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Modesto and San Francisco

Is it accurate to describe Modesto as "a suburb of San Francisco"? In terms of culture, climate, typical income, and culture again, most residents of both cities would be quite upset with this portrayal. Although Modesto is no longer best described as "a rural town 95 miles East of San Francisco" either, removing the word "rural" gives a much less misleading description. This may be important in terms of the feel of the film: San Francisco is generally thought of as avant garde, while Modesto is considered by outsiders to be very ordinary, even banal. (No offense to the residents intended! Call it traditional and be proud of that!) The movie's plot probably makes use of the "typical town" nature of Modesto, which is why I feel this point is worth making. Modesto is a dump. Its the state leader in stolen cars also. You only live there if you have too.

Plot

I have removed the plot summary from this film. It appears to have been copied from one or more other websites, which violates WP:COPYVIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Last Dreamworks Animation Video Game made by Activision

It was entered that this was the last (dreamworks) game made by Activision. Sources should be provided for this. On IGN.com, the video game for Shrek 4 and How To Train Your Dragon are both announced by Activision. [1] [2]

On Game Industry dot Biz they say: "the long term agreement extending the publishers rights to create games based on Shrek The Third and any potential future films in the Shrek Series. The deal also includes forthcoming releases from DreamWorks such as Bee Movie, Kung Fu Panda, Rex Havoc and How to Train Your Dragon. " [3]

Majorsuave (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Creation of the unexistent page "Monsters vs. Aliens (video game)"

I very rarely enter talk pages because I am 10 years old and I am worried I might get blocked, but I really think that Monsters vs. Aliens (video game) should be created. I have been waiting for ten days for this article to this article to be created, and I am positive that we should create the article. The content contains the following words:

"A video game is known to be coming out by March 2009. It will be the last Dreamworks film video game made by Activisioncitation needed, though the Nintendo DS version will be published by Amaze Entertainment instead. It is known to be coming out for the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, Wii and PlayStation Portable. The game allows fans to experience the movie’s action and humour while playing as The Missing Link, B.O.B.; and Ginormica. Friends or family members can join the game at anytime as Dr. Cockroach, Ph.D., in the co-op multiplayer mode. A second player can pick up a controller and drop in at anytime as Dr. Cockroach, Ph.D. As the most brilliant scientist in the world, players can blast and beam away enemies with weapons, plus reach hard to access places that only the smartest of cockroaches can get to. The video game has been classified, in 15 December 2008, as U for mild fantasy violence and very mild bad language. The mild fantasy violence comes that monsters or humans hit or throw each other, but, instead, when you kill them, you get flashes or sparks instead of fake or real blood. The very mild bad language explains that there is the use of the words crud, Heck and Butt, and some scenes of monsters burping. At U, it is very at it's limits. Otherwise it would have been rated a PG. The game is rated E10+ by the ESRB system. Currently, no very exact details can be revealed about this game

Links

• [4]
• [5], even though it says that it has a release date of April rather than March"

Do you think this is enough to enter it's own article? I think it is. And by the way, even if you don't except that, when it gets it's own article, I will turn it into contents and infoboxes anyway. So I think we will have a vote. The rules are:

1. Replies must be on Talk:Monsters vs. Aliens (video game), not here because Monsters vs. Aliens (video game) is actually quite a different subject. Any replies here will be moved to the page that we are doing votes on
2. You must put your input in one of the contents given. Please do not start a new content
3. The decision will be made on 1 March 2009 at 2PM. Any earlier will be removed

You are allowed to reply to a comment, and actually, I prefer you doing that because it helps me. You can do it as much as you like, as long as you let me know on the talk page that you have replied to that person by putting "**" below their comment and then your reply. 217.42.208.35 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaup tag

I have placed a cleaup tag as the plot section needs to be fixed. It has horrible sentence structure, mentions things that it hadn't previously mentioned, not to mention several run-on sentences.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone seems to have cleaned up the mess before I edited it, but I took the liberty of shortening it a bit. Sorry I didn't take the tag down, but it's really looking better. Immblueversion (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still Cite needed tags for all the monster descriptions. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot at 655 words...

...it could still do with losing another hundred words. Linear films need to be closer to 500 rather than 700. 700 is acceptable for Fight Club or Star Wars, not for this. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why though? Why does Star Wars get more words then this film. I know that Star Wars is genarally excepted as one of the greatest films of all time, but that doesn't mean that something like Monsters vs. Aliens derserves any less of a plot summary.Wild ste (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the guidelines say simple plots should be 500-700 words. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Last checked, 655 was between 500 and 700. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Post credits

We should add the post credits scene to the plot outline. Afterall, it does seem like a big thing. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And is just trivia. See The Simpsons Movie. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly am i meant to be seeing there?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At the end of The Simpsons Movie Maggie says "Sequel?" in a post credits joke. Is it listed? No. Post credit jokes are not part of the plot, they are just a joke. Therefore they are trivia, and then you should read WP:TRIVIA. The post credits joke stays out. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it stays out, as does the tibit about how the actors have worked together in the past. This article is about the movie, not their careers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But your saying it's just a joke to dismiss it. This was a whole scene, not just a one word question, there's a big difference. It not just trivia, just like it wasn't in Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda, Transformers, Napoleon Dynamite and numerous other films. These all include a post credits scene, all of which are in the article. Not edited in by me either. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer is not to insert trivia in to this article, the answer is remove trivia from others. The ND scene was shot especially for the cinema wide release, so that should stay, the Iron Man post-credits scene ties it to the other Marvel films, so that should stay. Transformers and Kung Fu Panda should go. And this post credit scene is just a joke, and a reference back to the coffee machine which was also just a joke. Maggie saying "sequel" is just a joke. At the end of Tropic Thunder Tom Cruise dances, and that is just a joke. The plot is a summary of the plot, not a blow by blow account of jokes. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See that's the problem. It's not just a joke. Its an important point that should be noted. It is not just trivia.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening, it is just a joke. It is not an important plot point. I have given you examples of the difference between the two, but you aren't listening. Put it in and see how quickly it is reverted, because you are in the wrong. If it was an important plot point then why have it happen ten minutes after everyone has left? Because (ta-da) is it just a joke. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahha, Your not listening, and you don't even know the details of the situation. First, it was after the first billed credits, like 1 minute after the 'main plot' as you shall call it, ended. In transformers it was like quite a bit after it from memory, yet it had it showed one of the characters surviving and did help/opened it up for a sequel. And i think this was a similar thing, hence it should be atleast noted.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What i'm saying, that out of the whole movie storyline, it falls into the last category; Aftermath. The movie has had it's resolution, and in certain aspects the plot has been rounded up. But from a character perspective, and storytelling, what happens afterwards, is still important. If it opens it up for a sequel(through plot(as in not maggie saying sequel, although this may still be worth mentioning)), then yes it's important, and it is also important if it says something about what happened to the characters. Like in The Incredibles, the final scene(and 5 seconds) (although not after credits) tells the audience that the family continues to fight crime. But even if it was a post-credits scene, it would still be worth noting, location i irrelevent, substance is. Too which it is not 'just a joke', but something worth mentioning. I think what i have said is very good reasoning, as too why it should be included. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is trivia, it is a joke. Blather all you want, you are wrong. And at this point you are in the minority, if you want go to WP:FILM and make your case there for adding a trivial post-credits scene, and if they agree that it should go in, then put it in, but as it is against MOS:FILMS I don't see that happen. "I think what i have said is very good reasoning, as too why it should be included." - does not surprise me, but you don't need to convince yourself you need to convince others and so far I am unconvinced as is Daedalus. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's mainly because you were never going to change your mind. Your whole argument is stubborn. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, my argument is backed up with guidelines the MOS and consensus. Have you changed Daedalus's mind? No. Have you discussed it with the film project and established a consensus to include trivia in this article? No. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Darrenhusted. Per WP:PLOT, the plot summary is not the most important part of a film article. What we aim for with plot summaries in film articles is to cover the broad strokes of what happens in a film. We do not need to specify every event that takes place. From the sound of this particular post-credits scene, it is not an event that is really part of the big image, so to speak. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I would consider the total annihilation of the Earth to at least grant a sentence in a Wikipedia article. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you will enjoy the film 2012, but it is a joke and has no place in the plot summary as explained in detail seven months ago. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

http://events.charlotteobserver.com/reviews/show/42867-review-monsters-vs-aliens

"The movie may best be appreciated by people who know the references. All five monsters come from low-budget science fiction films of the 1950s. The towering Ginormica (Reese Witherspoon) was inspired by “Attack of the 50-Foot Woman.” The missing link, silent in “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” has Will Arnett's voice here. Roaring, wordless Insectosaurus is a “Godzilla” slug magnified by radiation, while Bob the Blob (Seth Rogen) comes from – well, “The Blob.” Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie) has a counterpart in “The Fly,” where another scientist acquires the characteristics of an insect after a failed experiment."

makes sence. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of sense, hands down. And it's not Godzilla, but Mothra. :) The movie also bags various other pop-culture references in the same frantic Dreamworks vein as ever, which are quickly painting themselves as a kind of modern day Warner cartoon masters. 189.114.24.89 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible B.O.B. could have been partially inspired by Bob the Tomato from Veggie Tales considering B.O.B. was created partially from a genetically-altered tomato? Or is it just a coincidence that two tomato-related characters are named Bob? Thorenn (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

MUSIC: In the film, "Who's sorry Now" by Journey plays as the teens start to make out. Its not listed in the WIKI soundtrack. Same for "Axel's theme" as the Prez meets the giant robot. signed, S,the one who knows everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

justine

I love this video so much even though im 11 , I really love this move so does my little brother Adam !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.141.73 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia talk page for the article, not a forum board. I understand how much you like this movie, but next time, please go somewhere else to express this. This keeps the talk page relevant to the article.147.8.120.113 (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That reply could have been worded in a nicer way. After all, WP wants us all to avoid being biters Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

R. Lee Emry reference (Kiefer Sutherland as W.R. Monger)

According to the extras on the DVD, Kiefer Sutherland noted he saw the pictures of W.R. Monger and thought of Yosemite Sam of Bugs Bunny for the voice. Ken Roberts 09:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by Alisonken1 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginormica's height

WHERE IS THE SOURCE that states that Ginormica's final height was 49 feet 11.5 inches as opposed to 50 feet (on the back of the Blu-Ray DVD cover) or 49 feet 11 inches (on the official movie website; after entering the site, click "Behind the Scenes" at the top of the page and then click "The Film")? Yes, I may sound a bit nitpicky here about this extra 0.5 inch, but unless someone can find a suitable citation for this, it is considered OR and should go. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I'll go ahead and remove it. Brendan (^TalK|_ContriB) 01:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A rather silly edit war over "Night of the Living Carrots"

As this edit war has started up again, I thought I'd comment on it. The "source" for title is a resume, and doing a quick Google search pulls up both names, Monsters vs. Aliens: Night of the Living Carrots[6] and Night of the Living Carrots[7], mostly in people's resumes. Since both names are displayed in resumes, I think until something more reliable and official comes up, I believe the best we can do is to use Monsters vs. Aliens: Night of the Living Carrots as the title, for consistency in the article, given the names of the other titles in the "Spin-offs" section. - SudoGhost™ 22:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mama Dietl

FYI: according to IMDb, the very funny role of Mama Dietl was performed by Conrad Vernon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892782/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast Still giggling, Wordreader (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)