Talk:Bee Movie

Film Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Camera gag?

For people unfamiliar with Degneres's camera gag at the Academy Awards, perhaps someone could write a one-sentence description?

bumblebee tuna

umm... bumblebee tuna is a brand of tuna fish (very popular too!). I doubt this has anything to do with Ace Ventura, they are just using basically the same gag, talking about the brand of tuna that exists. Considering the movie is called, The Bee Movie, I am pretty sure it is just a play on the brandname bumblebee. Just in case you need further proof.. http://www.bumblebee.com/

Nasonex?

I think something should be said about the similarities of this movie's antagonist and the nasonex bee mascot.

Gammel

I edited the page to include him in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.139 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Characters

I also added Andy, Freddy, and Bud Ditchwater to the character list(and added back Gammel AGAIN) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.47.110 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a bullet

I'm removing this for obvious reasons....

"Zellweger is not really an animated woman, she is an actual human being that plays the same exact role in all of her films. the sub par acting is the same, only the plots, and names change." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.81.47 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the same idiot that keeps adding the "inaccuracies" part. Morons. 71.238.255.214 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

The hell is all that? They gave the bee four limbs to make it look more anthropomorphic, it's not like they thought real bees have four legs instead of six. "This movie does not even mention what is currently going on in the Bee world", Uh why would it? It's a movie, not a documentary on bees. I'm deleting it. 71.238.255.214 00:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this it is a strange entry in the article... I mean this is a work of fiction that is animated... If "Inaccuracies" is going to stay in the article, then it should mention that real bees don't have conversations with humans either. Ridiculus! Codymr 04:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exacty, someone added it again, I'm deleting it. It just makes the whole article look ridiculous.71.238.255.214 10:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in this section are funny, but not appropriate. "Jerry Seinfeld is a real person, not a bee." lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.50.30 (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid something be funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.190.31 (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you are right that there is no point in ridiculous comments like "Jerry Seinfeld is a real person" and everyone knows bees can't talk, but there are some more subtle misconceptions that a lot of people don't know about that this movie includes. A major example is the fact that all worker bees ARE female. Also there is precident. Missinformation has been pointed out in other movie wiki-pages before: see the Historical deviations section in the entry for the movie Gladiator: Gladiator (2000 film). It is uncalled for and lazy to remove an entire section just because some people have abused it. Instead each line should be individually evaluated. Also if you do have a problem with something that someone posted you don't have to be a jerk about it, i.e. User:71.238.255.214's comment -"The hell is all that?" This is supposed to be a place for civil dialogue. 71.35.68.115 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry then? I mean no one did anything until I had to put all those humourus inaccuracies up. At least it's been cleared up. 71.238.255.214 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now someone put a bunch of useless and ridiculous stuff again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.255.214 (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Not sure I agree with user 71.35.68.115 about their Gladiator argument... That film is a "historical drama" and is based on many real figures in a historical context. In addition, the story takes place at real geographic locations. In that case, it is important to differentiate the factual elements from artistic license. Bee Movie is an animated film, which fits more comfortably in the world of comedy/irony/satire, therefore it is not meant to represent real people, insects, a particular time period or place per se. The audience assumes the filmmakers will take license with the biological accuracy of the characters. Neither the Antz or A Bug's Life Wiki articles deal with the inaccuracies of the insects represented in those films. It is like saying that mice do not wear gloves or that they are not bipedal, despite the way the Walt Disney Company draws Mickey Mouse - with gloves and animated to look and move in a human-like way. It may be better to guide the reader to the main article for honey bees, rather than listing a few liberties the filmmakers took with the characters. The problem with the section is that it can go on to absurdity... bees have compound eyes, not humanoid eyes... bees have more stripes on their abdomen than what is used in the film... the architecture of a bee's wings differ from what is portrayed in the film... etc... etc. Codymr 04:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Codymr makes a good point. I would however point out that the movie, though obvious fiction, does blend real bee biology (It is true that honey bees are social insects that live in a colony) with "Creative licence-Fiction biology. A distinction should be made between obvious creative licence (i.e. bees can't really talk) and something more subtle like the face that male honeybees have no stingers and all workers are female. Since the average movie-goer is not a bee biologist, they may be confused about what is fact and what is fiction on the more subtle points and go to wikipedia for answers. I like the suggestion of having links to the actual honeybee page. If I recall there was actually such a link at one point but it was also removed. AJseagull1 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure most people who are trying to learn about honeybees would go to the honey bee article, don't you think? I don't see how a Jerry Seinfeld movie should educate you on blatant facts. 71.238.255.214 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]