Jump to content

Talk:The Rescuers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aharmon1973 (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 15 February 2012 (→Suggestions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeThe Rescuers was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Suggestions

  • Plot synopsis is weak and poorly written. I made an attempt to expand and refine it, but Sjones23 refuted all my efforts. Aharmon1973 03:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reduce length of "Synopsis" section per WP:MOSFILM#Plot
Done, changed name to 'Plot' per WP:MOSFILM#Plot specifications. Cactusjump (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Cast" and "Characters" section; trim cast members who have minor roles
Trimmed cast list and descriptions. Cactusjump (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert "Songs" section into "Musical score" section; trim extraneous mentions of when songs appear in the film and focus more on their real-world context
Done, suggest that individual song pages be merged in to this section. Cactusjump (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Supervising animators" section may be too indiscriminate; perhaps combine with the "Cast"/"Characters" section (table format?)
  • "Significance" section should be converted into prose
Done. Cactusjump (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Abandoned concepts" section should be worked into a "Production" section, currently nonexistent
Section now exists, carries previously titled 'Significance' facts as well as part of the intro. Cactusjump (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merchandising" and "Promotional tie-ins" sections should be cited and woven together in a "Marketing" section
Changed name to 'Marketing', researching sources (if any exist). Cactusjump (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivia" section should be integrated with the rest of the article
  • "Walt Disney Classics Collection" section should be merged with "Marketing"
  • "See also" section should be discouraged; characters with singular appearances should not have their own articles

Suggestions on improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other suggestion -- move "Innovations" section to "Significance" Cactusjump (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved 'Innovations' to the 'Significance' section, since no one seemed to object. Cactusjump (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Songs

I have put a "Unreferenced section" template on the section "Songs", primarily due to the claims that inanimate objects are singing the songs. When I watched the movie last night, I didn't feel as though during the song "The Journey" that the bottle was singing, but that it was part of the narrative, such as in Tarzan and the opening song of The Lion King. I also feel that the references to Shelby Flint "singing offscreen" is incorrect, for this same reason, as she is not a character in the film. I'll leave this up for a while, and if no one objects will correct these references. Any objections are welcome. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections, went ahead and edited this section, changing it to Musical Score per above task list. Removed all analysis of song's meanings, as they are disputable. Cactusjump (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The song "The Journey" is not the actual bottle singing, but it is sung from its perspective. For this reason Shelby Flint's sometimes been credited as the voice of "The Bottle." T.W. (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reliable source that supports this, feel free to add. Cactusjump (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Glad to see the changes made to the article! I'm glad my suggestions did not go to waste. Feel free to continue editing the article since judging from page revision statistics, there is no real primary contributor here. If there is interest in feedback, here are a few more suggestions: -Move the screenshot in the "Plot" section to elsewhere in the article per WP:FILMNFI; the screenshot would exist better among real-world context than in-universe detail.

Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Bolding in "Characters" and "Musical score" are not needed; the formatting is best used when there are multi-lined items that make it hard for the reader to spot the actor and role amidst the bulleted items.

Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-"Production" may be better to move up above "Musical score", since it is more core to the film.

Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-The entire "Marketing" section feels indiscriminate. I hate to remove it all without further research, but I think that we should find out where this information came from so it is verifiable by readers who visit the page. Even if all details are verifiable, it may be better to re-write the section as prose, summarizing most items into general categories and mentioning select examples.

I believe it should be deleted entirely. I haven't been able to find any sources to back up this section, and I've never seen such a lengthy list like this in other articles. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed previous info, moved "Classic Collection" info under this heading. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Dates should be de-linked per MOS:DATE throughout the article.

Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-The "Controversy" section should be more thoroughly cited; I think this could be done easily with a little research since controversies are favorite topics of media.

Found another source, updated, cleaned up. If find more sources, will add. Cactusjump (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Suggest removing "Film Credits" in its entirety. We tend to avoid indiscriminate cast and crew information, since such lists are not quite encyclopedic and can be found at databases like IMDb. Important people can be identified in the infobox, the cast section, or in another part of the article body where they played a major role (such as designing a particular scene).

I also agree this should be removed. It seems superfluous. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If help is needed to find additional resources about this film, I will be happy to look. I have watchlisted this page, so feel free to respond to my suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dursin, Andy (2003). "Fun Fun Fun: 'Til Your Daddy Takes the DVDs Away...". Film Score Monthly. 8 (5): pp. 45–48. Finally, Disney has released a nice-looking transfer of The Rescuers, their charming 1977 feature that remains the studio's finest cartoons from one of their least productive periods. The 1.66 transfer is colorful if a bit grainy, while the supporting programs--including a 'True Life Adventure', Waterbirds--round out a disc that should enchant young viewers and readers old enough to recall seeing the film in theaters. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've tagged some 'orphan' pages that exist surrounding this film, specifically with the individual characters (some which seem ok, others are just outright character analysis). There are also three song stubs that I believe should be deleted. I think ideally all the information should be kept in this one article. If you can assist in keeping an eye on these, fixing, possibly deleting, that'd be helpful. Thanks, Erik! I'll get to work on the other items. Cactusjump (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging all duplicate info in the character articles to this article. BEING BOLD!! Cactusjump (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! What else do you want to do with the article? I think major structural concerns are addressed. I can help with some copy-editing for the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I'm still considering bringing the Madame Medusa page over here. I think the Bernard/Bianca's might have to stay put because they can apply to the sequel, too. I'd love to get this to be nominated for Feature status, so anything that you can suggest, let me know! Cactusjump (talk)
At present, we do not have guidelines for film character articles (though it is on the coordinators' agenda). For a film character article to really work, it needs to be more than a plot summary of what the character did across various films. That kind of information can be conveyed in each film article. How critics perceive the character across multiple films could be a major aspect of an article, though the strongest aspect would be themes. I think that this is usually reserved for major characters like horror film icons.
I looked at my university databases for coverage about this film, and I did not find anything extensive, unfortunately. It may be a tough challenge to make this article a Featured Article, to give you fair warning. It may be best off as a Good Article. (Unless you know enough about Disney books to determine if they have coverage about this film.) I think that the best way I can help right now in terms of resources is looking through newspaper databases, but I am not sure about other types of publications at this point. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I moved the Medusa page, and I think the Bianca/Bernard articles could easily be integrated in to here. I'll check my Disney resources (books) and try to find any insightful information that hasn't been presented here. Cactusjump (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

Since the merging of the film's character articles to the film article, there were images left over from these merged articles. The images were added to this film article, but they do not have sufficient rationale for inclusion per WP:NFC#Acceptable uses and WP:FILMNFI. The articles already has two images that have acceptable rationales; we cannot dump extra images and force them to belong. It is like trying to push a square peg through a round hole. The best practice is to develop articles to their ideal status, and if anything in the body could be significantly illustrated by visual aids, non-free images can be added. This is not the case here, and we do not include images just for the sake of showing what a character looks like. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

Just clarifying some edits I had to revert:

  • Plot: The plot summary as it was written before was fine. The length was fine, the grammar was fine, the details were limited for length...everything fine. There's no need to fix something that's not broken.
  • Brutus and Nero are Alligators: I'm tired of going back and fixing all The Rescuers and related articles reverting changes that Medusa's pets are crocodiles. They are alligators. It's been proven in animation books by Bob Thomas, Leonard Maltin, and Frank and Ollie that they are alligators. Their snouts and tails show they are alligators. Please, people. Stop changing the articles to say that they are crocs, when they're not!

Thank you. Cactusjump (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now who done it?

Wow, I just want to scream seeing what's become of all of the The Rescuers related articles these past few weeks. I mean, "Mr. Perkinson"?! What the hell is all this BS-crap? Not to mention poorly chosen images, ridiculously incorrect information regarding voice actors... the dismissal of tons and tons of valuable information... Eek. T.W. (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits made that included changing all mentions of Snoops to Perkinson and some other irrelevant edits. But as far as the other articles (mostly of the characters), they've all been merged in to this article because the information was just duplicated in the other articles or was all unverified information. Although some of those articles were written exceptionally, they contained mostly character analysis and speculation, not encyclopedic information. I have done everything I can to maintain the integrity of "The Rescuers" and keep everything that is verified. Cactusjump (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

Taran Wanderer wrote: "Where did all the information regarding the songs go? Surely not in their respective articles as they've been killed off only to struggle at life here."

As you can see in the above discussion, there were no citations for the assertions made for the songs. It was a lot of speculative analysis about their interpretation -- interpretation that could be argued. We've been trying to removed the analysis and keep to encyclopedic information only. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For example, in the recent change you made that I edited: it is interpretation to say that the shining star "offers hope" for Penny. This can be argued, as it can be said that perhaps she is making a wish on the star, or maybe she is simply looking out the window. Perhaps it is the two mice who offer Penny hope. This is the kind of language that must be avoided. Cactusjump (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an interpretation. Penny is offered hope by the shining star because previously in the film she had been told about such star by Rufus the cat. So it is a given in the film. Penny is not even aware of Bernard and Miss Bianca's presence, which clearly makes the previous version invalid. T.W. (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation. The fact that it is up for debate at all demonstrates that it is not encyclopedic, but your analysis of the events.
In reference to your comments in your last edit "If needed, many of the story-book versions can be used as proof, if the film's clear evidence is not enough. The whole scene is degraded if we use such indifferent language." I don't wish to edit war with you, but the article is not about the story-book but the actual film. Nowhere in the film does it state or show that the songs are interpreted in that way. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for personal analysis or an essay on the film. Your interpretation of the songs were written beautifully, but they were your interpretation, plain and simple. The section is not "degraded" in any way by staying true to the facts. Cactusjump (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard the Brave (Margery Sharp)

Before someone decided to resurrect the article on the character of Bernard under the name "Bernard the Brave," this title corresponded to an article regarding Margery Sharp's novel. Whatever happened to it? Surely we're not going to have the book articles be merged into this one as well? Too much valuable information is being lost this way. The last thing we need is two-sentence mentions of the novels as well. T.W. (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard as a character should be integrated in this article as well as Margery Sharp's book article (if one exists). I'm sure Disney's interpretation varies from the book in some way. There's no need for individual articles, as the only thing different from what is present in this article and the character article was his superstitions. Repetitive articles are just unnecessary. Cactusjump (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world should Margery Sharp's novel's articles be integrated into this one? They're completely different works that don't even share plot-lines. You're getting too ridiculously carried away with all this merging, and I for one don't really approve of it. Next thing you know you'll be merging all of the "Snow White" adaptations into Disney's film article. T.W. (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a misunderstanding. The Bernard character article was merged in to this article -- it was called Bernard (The Rescuers). I did not touch an article named "Bernard the Brave" in regards to Margery Sharp. Someone using a user name Bernard the Brave revived the article of Bernard (The Rescuers) when it was already merged in to this article.
Secondly, as you see from the discussions above, a task list was put together in May 2008 by the Wiki Films project to clean up this article. I collaborated with Erik from the team to help fix this article. It has been many months of work and research. I don't appreciate you saying that I'm "ridiculously carried away" when there has been careful consideration in every change and fix made to this article. Each character article that was merged in to this one carried little to no new information, just speculative character analysis. This is not a personal affront to you or your work on the articles, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or analysis of the film or its characters. Cactusjump (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, I checked, and the Bernard the Brave article is still intact. Cactusjump (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment was regarding the suggestion of merging possible articles on Margery Sharp's children's novels into the film's article; next thing you know J. K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" novels' articles will be getting merged into their corresponding films' articles as well. The character articles were mostly description's of the character's appearance, personality and mostly actions, not psychological analysis. There's a major difference. Those articles also featured more information regarding voice actors, animators, creators and inspirations in greater detail than here. Not to mention their helpful individual images. T.W. (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no mention of the numerous covers that were done to some of the songs in this film, such as Lea Salonga's cover of Shelby Flint's "Someone's Waiting For You." No mention either of which artists participated in each of the individual songs (Bob Newhart, Bernard Fox...). Whatever happened to "Faith is a Bluebird" and "The U.S. Air Force"? Those form part of the soundtrack. T.W. (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, as far as I know there was no merge of any articles that related to Margery Sharp's novel characters merged into this article. The character articles that were merged were all in reference to THIS film and repeated almost verbatim what was in THIS article. Cited facts that were present in the character's articles were moved in here. I personally did not delete the images present in those articles, so I can't give you an answer to that except to -- once again -- direct you to the discussion from another editor above about images.
As far as the songs go, "Faith is a Bluebird" is a poem that was spoken by Rufus the cat, not a song, and "The U.S. Air Force" music was incidental. Please refer to the task list above where it was requested to "trim extraneous mentions of when songs appear in the film and focus more on their real-world context."
You are welcome to contribute a section on covers made of the songs from this film if you find them relevant to this article and they are accurately cited. Please just read the above task list and discussion before making changes. Cactusjump (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirations

Early in the film's production, the Disney animators were initially considering reusing Cruella de Vil from 101 Dalmatians as the villainess. However due to concerns that reusing Cruella would make The Rescuers seem like a sequel to an otherwise unrelated film, Madame Medusa was created in her place.

In addition to inheriting some characteristics from Cruella, Medusa may have passed some of her original traits onto Ursula in The Little Mermaid, including a similar snaky hairdo, and facial features, and the tendency to keep a pair of ferocious green, yellow-eyed pets (Brutus and Nero for Medusa, the wolf eels, Flotsam and Jetsam for Ursula).

I am actually surprised that neither of these claims are in some way mentioned in the article, for both have been proven true and valid numerous times (particularly the first claim), and I know there are references to support both. Some of the claims in the first paragraph are a bit too much, and Ursula's official profile on the Disney website briefly mentions her similarities with Madame Medusa. T.W. (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have no citations as you have them in the above paragraph. If you can cite reliable sources, add it to the article. Cactusjump (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a tag for this. "Both have been proven true and valid numerous times" is not sufficient - you have to show your references here. "I know there are references to support both" - Fine; include them according to Wikipedia guidelines. Adding "facts" to Wikipedia means doing the work of adding your references, too, not just saying that you know they're facts and everyone needs to just trust you. I've added quite a few tags throughout this article; it seems someone's been doing a lot of this kind of thing lately.PacificBoy 07:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't care any more for post-2005 Wikipedia, so count me out. The marketing section was removed twice because...? T.W. (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim " The motive to steal a diamond originated in Margery Sharp's 1959 novel, Miss Bianca." is false. The Diamond Duchess kept the orphan, Patience, around for servitude and a target for cruelty; there was no element of diamond theft in the entire book. 4 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.79.139.146 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evinrude name

http://www.outboardmotoroilblog.com/evinrude-oil/371-a-brief-history-of-evinrude/ - Here's something, though perhaps not 100% convincing. It's harder than I thought to find online references for this. Library books should have more convincing information. T.W. (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a blog is not a reliable source. I'm guessing they might have gotten the information themselves from this very article. I actually looked for a resource yesterday in my 20 Disney animation books, as well as the internet, to no avail. It's a good assumption, but we may just have to leave it with a citation needed tag for a while. Cactusjump (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I remember where the piece of information originated from. It was part of the "Fun facts from the archives" pop-up window on the DVD's official website, which Disney removed when the Disney DVD website was completely updated. Hopefully some library volume will have retained that information. T.W. (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went to see if Disney still has a Rescuers page, and it looks like this is it. I don't see any info on Evinrude there, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I'll keep looking through my books and the internet to see what I can find. We'll get this article to FA status someday! Cactusjump (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the new updated profile (which by the way displays screenshots from the sequel instead of the original film), [1] This was the previous version, which included a link to a "Fun facts from the archives" pop-window, which had the information on Evinrude among other facts. T.W. (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So close! Cactusjump (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick and heartfelt "thank you"

Thanks to everyone who has helped to maintain this article in the face of a very persistent, single-minded and determined vandal, User:Bambifan101 and his Bottomless Sock Drawer. I have therefore semi-protected the page against new and unregistered users. Hopefully, you won't have to deal with this nut where this article is concerned until June 1, 2010. If the semi-protection is causing problems with legitimate users, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And a reminder that if anyone is new or unregistered and wants to make changes, they can discuss it here. I'm on almost every day, so I can always discuss a change with someone. Cactusjump (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future BD release?

I am of the opinion that there is a problem with the added suggestion that a Blu-ray release of the film is due in March 2013, and do not believe the statement belongs in this article without more sources to back it up. The offending statement is below:

Sources indicate that the film has been, along with a small number of other Disney films, added to Walt Disney Home Entertainment's prestigious "Platinum Collection" line and will be released as such on DVD and Blu-ray on March 12, 2013.

The cited source is a Spanish DVD info website instead of a self-published blog; that much I grant out without any problem. However, when the source is translated into English, it's merely a description of the plot of the film. The header of the article does suggest that the film will become part of the Platinum Edition line, which the editor added to the article. However, there are two problems with that statement ...

First, there is no indication in the cited article which region will receive this release: is it Spain or North America? The other provided dates in the article are for the North American releases, so a reasonable reader would make the assumption that this subsequent release is also for North America, a statement not backed up by the cited source. Second, Disney has shifted its promotional language to "Diamond Edition" in North America, apparently retiring "Platinum Edition" at the same time. So that would again seem to point toward this release (i.e., "Platinum Edition" Blu-ray) not being intended for North America; this is not to say that North America won't get a BD release of this film, but it could conceivably be earlier than the mentioned date and with no "insert precious substance Edition" labeling.

Speaking of the date: the cited source only mentions a month and a year, while the poster has added an actual calendar date. Again, this is speculation not backed up by the source data. To compound matters, the Spanish site indicates that the March 2013 date is "por confirmar." This translates as "to be confirmed" ... in other words, it's somebody's speculation, not fact. Official press releases on the site are labeled as "anuncio oficial"—"official announcement". The cited source article is labeled "avance"—literally "advance," or probably in this usage "preview" or "teaser."

To summarize, I think the cited source, while legitimate, does not make the statements that are attributed to it, or suggested by it, in the article.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't care, do as you please. I don't bother with Collectonian-infected articles too much. T.W. (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Collectonian-infected"? Sounds rather like a personal attack on another editor to me. What marks an article as being "infected"? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it as a personal attack, or me just basically saying that I will not waste my time on an article where an authority-hungry person is going to get involved and demand to have the final word on everything. That's the reason I stopped editing and finding information and sources for this article in which I was formerly very active. Collectonian was helpful enough at first in helping me improve the Celia (TV series) article, but then her behavior turned into that of a tyrant, monitoring my every move and constantly harassing me. After that she started screwing around with practically every article I was involved in. Not liking to be treated as if she had actual authority to me, I stopped involving myself in these articles and left her to fix the 'tags' she had decorated tens of articles with.

Either way, this is all very irrelevant. The bottom line is that you can do what you see fit, and I won't argue any further about it. T.W. (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Prederi, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please delete the image "Rescuers Topless Woman.jpg" because it is not a proper content for this page in case when children see it. Prederi (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, the image is too small to see clearly even when viewed at full resolution; a child reading the page would hardly notice it. sonia♫ 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 68.17.110.122, 17 January 2011

In the intro, it claims the film was released in IMAX format. I highly doubt this. I found nothing on Google to support this and it seems there were films in IMAX before the year 1977. Furthurmore, placing after The Rescuers Down Under makes it sound like Down Under was the one released in IMAX. Also, in "Marketing", "on 2005" should be "in 2005" (grammar), and the last sentence, "750 copies of this sculpture will be produced and priced at a retail price of $399.00" seems to be inconsistent with the past tense used in the rest of that paragraph.

68.17.110.122 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Couldn't find a source for the IMAX release, and since Wikipedia is not a catalog, the pricing information you mentioned could also be removed. --McDoobAU93 02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 64.134.54.15, 1 May 2011

In "Plot", it links to a deleted YouTube video. This is in violation of WP:EL.

64.134.54.15 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Link has been removed. Thanks for catching it! --McDoobAU93 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clear typo in the infobox: {{filmt date}} is transcluded; it should be {{film date}}. 64.134.159.159 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by User:KDS4444. — Bility (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brutus and Nero

They are American crocodiles not American alligators look at their snouts and teeth also Bianca refers to them as crocodiles during the escape plan 75.62.72.162 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I just found out that there is a 2011 movie with the same title as this movie, so this article here should be called The Rescuers (1977 film), but that in the article for the 2011 film should have information saying that it has no relation to this Disney film. --FrancineFan3883 23:01, June 3rd, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... IMDB only shows two films with the words "The Rescuers" in them. The first is the 1977 Disney film, and the second is its 1990 sequel, The Rescuers Down Under. Can you provide a source indicating there is an upcoming film this year with the name "The Rescuers"? --McDoobAU93 04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't, I can: The Rescuers (2011). In either case, the film does not have an article written on it, so the article name for this one can meanwhile stay the same. T.W. (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Taran ... I used IMDB's search and it only pulled up the two Disney films, not this third one. But I do agree, since this 2011 release doesn't have an article (and the lead for this one makes it clear what it is), there's no need to change it until such time as The Rescuers (2011 film) is created. --McDoobAU93 16:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length

It's down to about 1,000 words but much better written than the original synopsis. Please keep! --unsigned comment made 14 February 2012‎ by User:216.59.109.170

Unfortunately, while I agree that some tweaks can be made, the intent of a plot summary is to do just that ... summarize the plot. We do not need to include every single detail that occurs in the movie. Comparing your most recent modification to that which was there before, within the first three paragraphs the original summary carries us 3/4 through the movie, while your summary hasn't even reached the second act yet. That is far too much detail than is necessary. I suggest that you read the section on plot summary that I linked above, to be more familiar with what the project intended with film articles.
At the same time, in the interest of fairness, I would welcome you to present what you feel are the key plot points of the film and why those plot points should be included in the article's plot summary. When you do, please be sure to add it here and to sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks!
--McDoobAU93 19:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed the text, though not to 700 words. At this point, removing any more detail would cut logic out of the story, so please keep as is. Aharmon1973 17:49 EST 14 February 2012

But the 931-word plot summary would exceed the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I tried. You should have shown respect for the hard work I put into writing a plot summary much better than the old one you restored. I'm sorry you didn't see the point in that. I tried working with you, and in the end you ignored me completely. I guess this is what rollbackers are good for. Aharmon1973 22:46 EST 14 February 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rescuers&oldid=476947440"