Talk:The Secret of NIMH

	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.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Secret of NIMH 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

Archives: 1

Archives

Archive 1

Box office

I'd like to know how much money this animation made in the box office. I'd also like to say that this article should be improved since the people at WikiProject Films gave this a high improtance rating but quality-wise it is rated B. 60.50.119.217 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge with The Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue

i am opposed to this. i think a see also or a mention of it in the article's text is sufficient. the two are so culturally distinct from one another that they need separate entries. the first is a cultural icon for people of a certain generation, while the other is a direct to video knock off that didn't involve the original creative team and that no one i know has ever seen. Coffee joe (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who worked on it isn't particularly relevant. The second film seems to fail all film notability guidelines, being a direct to video sequel and having little coverage on its own. Rather than being a sentence with a link to the stub, the merged version would be a paragraph with no link. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm...maybe i just have an emotional attachment to the original and hate to see it mentioned in the same breath as crap (i call it that without the qualification of having ever seen it, but i'm still willing to wager). but i can see your point, so i guess i'm turned around on it.Coffee joe (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was ass. Trust me, you're missing nothing. HalfShadow 02:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, trust me, I know the feeling. A lot of great animated films were followed by crud sequels, but we have to stay neutral. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the article about the sequel deleted, just so people can forget what a pile of crap it was, but rather have it kept as a separate article than merge it into this one, if it has to stay. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i know but like Collectonian pointed out, we're supposed to be neutral. and it's not an article on its own. Coffee joe (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct ratio and theatrical release?

As I haven't seen this info on the page, it seems that the film was animated with a 1:33 ratio, but cropped to fit widescreen theatrical release. I have no other source than this guy on this forum claiming he exchanged e-mails with Don Bluth himself (see comment #15), but the difficulty to find an "original theatrical release" version on dvd should hint something.

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, but shouldn't the infobox give the image ratio? Given the diversity of ratios in the film industry, I think it's a valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.209.97 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added invisible comments

Mrs. Brisby's name regularly gets changed to Frisby, apparently because people fail to know that the name of the character was changed due to possible copyright violations. I've added invisible comments to prevent further "corrections". Are the comments just right, or too annoying for other editors?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They seem a bit excessive and make it hard to read. My guess is that people are jumping directly to the plot, missing the name bit. So, I put a note at the top of the plot section that rehashes the lead just to be clear. RP9 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we have a new Frisby edit already. I made the invisible comment more noticeable.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 05:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the note could have been missed. Is it that people think it should be Frisby as a canon thing even though that was not the name used? RP9 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]