Talk:FernGully: The Last Rainforest

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FernGully: The Last Rainforest article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

FernGully: The Last Rainforest has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 2, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 17, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that allegations have been made that the 2009 film Avatar plagiarised the 1992 film FernGully: The Last Rainforest?

Animation: American / Films Mid‑importance

	Animation portal 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.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal FernGully: The Last Rainforest is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Australian / American / Animated

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

20th Century Studios Low‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Censorship

Just a question for User:75.19.33.105 who added the censorship section: in which version did the censorship take place? Was it when the film was aired on television (if so, what country) or was it on DVD release or video release? -- Annie D 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The songs "Batty Rap" and "Toxic Love" were censored for disturbing imagery, explicit language, and sexual content. Specifically, the parts where Hexxus proclaims his undying love to the Leveller and where Batty narrates word-for-word what went on during the experiments performed on him. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful movie

This movie is beautiful. Should there be a Characters section? Angie Y. (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Don't see why not. Koyae (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Film articles do not have a character section nor does this one warrant it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does! Siameseare ||| Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 05:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree! ScarfaceDummy • Talk • Contributions 07:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old conversation, I just want to add my weight so that somebody new doesn't come along and think a characters section has been A-okayed. It seems AnmaFinotera is the only user in this discussion that has read wikipedia's guidelines. As far as 'characters' are concerned, information should not exceed one or two lines, preferably referenced, in the cast section. For an example see the good article Avatar (2009 film). There should not, under any circumstances, be a separate Characters section. Freikorp (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup labels

Is there a specific reason the super-long plot-summary -label got put up here? I didn't find the synopsis to be long whatsoever... Koyae (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal view, but by Wikipedia standards it is ridiculous. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ AnmaFinotera: don't be rude please; i agree with Koyae.Assianir (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing rude about pointing out wikipedia's guidelines. WP:MOSFILM clearly states film plots should be between 400 and 700 words. The plot is currently at 726 words. I will be shortening it accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar

anybody notice some point in common with Avatar?Assianir (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct question is, "Does anyone notice some point of Avatar in common with Ferngully? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.254.100 (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comparison is made at Avatar (2009 film). I do not think we need to mention the comparison here; it has no direct bearing on this topic. Erik (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the sources cited currently do not actually include statements from Cameron or any of Avatar's creators, I don't think it is appropriate to include the comparison here. Jarnhalr (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the "fact" listed comes across as nothing more than a weak attempt to bash Avatar (because it probably is). There is no evidence that Ferngully was actually a source of inspiration for Avatar, or even that the "similarities" are anything more than the standard comparisons one can draw between several movies. (There's nothing on the Bad News Bears page stating "thematic and plot elements from The Bad News Bears were later seen in the 1986 film Hoosiers" or anything on the Rocky page about Kung Fu Panda.) On top of that, even as personal analyses, how can the cited sources be considered concrete proof? How can they be considered anything more than the opinions of minor critics among several, quite possible more worthwhile, other ones? Petty jabs don't belong on an encyclopedia page.74.111.124.39 (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. Firstly the 'sources cited' do not need to include statements from Avatar's creators. If we only accepted criticism from people criticising themselves, well, that just pisses all over wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I also find the IP's comment that this is a "weak attempt to bash Avatar" completely laughable. Independent sources have commented on the similarity in plot elements, and that is what is mentioned in the article in one line, nothing more. As per WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Commentors have made a connection; we are not going to suppress their opinions just because some of you happen to disagree with them. There is nothing stopping you from finding sources that disagree that Avatar borrows plot elements from Ferngully and then adding them to the page. Just because you've found another page that does not state plot elements were borrowed from another film means absolutely nothing; did reliable sources make a connection? If so, nothing is stopping somebody from adding that information, just because nobody has done it yet does not mean that the article is correct in not stating such claims. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't agree, but you've convinced me of nothing. The line as it was when I made my last comment clearly stated the claim as a fact, while you yourself admit that it is a matter of opinion. As neutrality seems to be important to you, I'd think the problem in this would be clear to you especially. (The point of noting what Avatar's creators haven't said is that this is what it would take to make this statement as a fact. It is not uncommon for creators to cite sources of inspiration.) What's more, what that comment (and even the new, revised version of it) adds to this page is questionable, as it is first and foremost a criticism of a different movie. There is nothing wrong with listing qualified opininions in the appropriate place, but to cite them as the truth, especially when it is something so debatable, is a blatant bias.74.111.124.39 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewording the one line in the article to make it seem more neutral to those taking offence from it. I am very open to further suggestions on rewording. Freikorp (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, after reading it again I noticed it came across as more of a fact, hence the rewording. I agree we shouldn't state opinions as fact. Anyway, what are you suggesting we do from here? I don't see any problem anymore. I see two references from reliable sources backing up an opinion. We're not telling people what to think, we're letting them read the references and decide for themselves whether or not plot elements were borrowed. When I read that line, I see how this film may have had an impact on something much bigger than it ever intended too, (regardless of whether it did or not, people have commented on it, and that is all that is required for inclussion on wikipedia) which aside from being relevant to this article, is fairly interesting. Freikorp (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess now that I've defended my first point, all that's left to say about the line as it is is that it might need to highlight Ferngully as the focus better (such as, perhaps, by tacking "The film may have secretly been a source of inspiration, as" to the front of it). Anyway, sorry for the late response (I'm having some computer problems).130.49.145.117 (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Done. I won't have internet access myself for a month starting from the day after tomorrow so naturally I won't be available for further discussion on the matter for a while. Freikorp (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou?

As far as I remember the goanna lizard's name is... Goanna. That's what he was called in the sequal. 207.216.208.68 (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 121.210.88.93, 8 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Mount Warning is an actual mountain near byron bay, the word should be linked to the wikipedia article about mount warning 121.210.88.93 (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing order of characters?

Is there some reason Jonathan Ward is listed before Samantha Mathis in the intro? If not, shouldn't Samantha Mathis be listed first, as the voice of the protagonist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.218.242 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication date of book or novel

Does anyone know the date the book preceding the film (by Diana Young) was initially published? I came across the date April 1st 1992 but that's only 9 days prior to the film's debut and I find it hard to believe anything could have been adapted that fast. I think that may have been a reprint by Scholastic to promote the film. Ranze (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely by a reprint to promote the film. In my search for sources to expand this article I found references that state the book was written about 15 years prior to 1992, but I never found an exact date. Freikorp (talk)