Jump to content

Talk:Enchanted (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Plot

I read the plot, and basically, it appears to be just another romantic comedy; one that only makes sense to "adult" viewers, with animation sequences and a "fairy-tale" aesthetic to keep the "kiddies" entertained, only making it a "family" film because it's convenient. That, IMO, is not "true" family entertainment, and is not the kind of film Walt would have made. It's...it's not like it was Splash or anything.

NEXT!

I'm new here -- so maybe I'm wrong -- but I thought the Talk Page was for talk about the article, not opinions on the subject. Seems like this sort of discussion would be better suited for IMDb. Swango 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You may be new, but you're absolutely right.

Ahem... I'm not quite sure that it's legitimate to call Alan Menken 'legendary.'

It's definitely legitimate to call Menken legendary. Basically, when you think of Disney songwriters, the first couple of people that come to mind are Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and The Sherman Brothers. Save Toy Story, The Lion King, Mulan, and Tarzan, Alan Menken was the songwriters of all of the Disney renaissance movies (The Little Mermaid to Tarzan). This is not unlike the Sherman Brothers writing music for just about every movie in the 60s and 70s. If Alan Menken isn't legendary, neither are the Sherman Brothers, I suppose.

JHM

Resolved

Jim Hill Media's articles on this movie should be linked as they are very informative about thte production of this film.----JFP 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)70.188.185.206 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

JHM is a self-published blog that often doesn't cite its sources or have other double-checks or 3rd-party confirmation. As such, JHM cannot be used as an official WP resource for information. SpikeJones 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Voice actresses

Resolved

According to IMDB, two voice actresses who have worked for Disney before, have small roles/appearances in this movie. Paige O'Hara (Belle's voice in Beauty and the Beast) plays someone called Trish, while Judy Kuhn, who previously did Pocahontas' singing voice, appears as 'pregnant woman'. Think we should mention, maybe as trivia? I found it pretty interesting. Lunapuella 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

As per these guidelines the release date listed should not usually be that of the general release (in this case November 21). The premiere, or appearances at festivals, for example, take precedence (in this case November 11, for now). Liquidfinale 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Incorrect

Resolved

I have seen an advanced screening of this film and the plot as written here is mostly incorrect and based on assumptions made from the trailer. I will try and write a general plot summary but I am concerned about legality issues with Disney Studios because of the advanced screening.

I propose removing the plot and writing a "prediction" instead. And it would be best if the plot wasn't revealed until it was shown in theatres.64.180.83.70 04:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a reference?

Resolved
  • References to Pocahontas:
    • Judy Kuhn, the singing voice of Pocahontas, appears as a pregnant woman.
    • Parts of the movie take place in Central Park, where Pocahontas originally premiered for the first time.
  • References to Mulan:
    • During "That's How You Know", Giselle is holding a parasol similar to Mulan's.
  • References to Brother Bear :
    • The film begins in a narrow aspect. Later, when the main character enters a different reality, the film switches to full screen. The exact same thing happened in Brother Bear. Additionally Patrick Dempsey, who plays Robert, voiced the protagonist Kenai in the movie's sequel Brother Bear 2.

Are these really references to other Disney films? Seems more like coincidences to me. Anakinjmt 01:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you the parasol thing, but everything else seems like a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.215.227 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The parasol thing is a coincidence. See next comment below as to where the references in the article currently came from... SpikeJones (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
A friend forwarded to me a list that Disney was providing to film reviewers for insider references to possibly include in their reviews. I have updated the article to include those, and removed all "casual observations and coincidences". I'm sure folks will bastardize and change what is there now with their own thoughts of what they think is (or isn't) an official reference, but at least I know that what's up now is straight from the source -- or at least, a friend of someone who knows the source. SpikeJones (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Disneyland parade reference

Hi, I'm new here so I pretty much not sure whether I'm typing this up in the right page. But anywho. In the 'Singing in the park' clip, right after they carry her, everyone starts gathering around her, quite similar to the Disney park parades.

And I'm pretty sure it isn't a coincidence, as she actually does the 'princess wave', which a lot of princesses on top of floats do to the crowd.

Possibly adding in to the references page? Dragonzair 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)dragonzair

Ref for similaraties to other disney films.

Doesn't have to be Original research. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-11-22-enchanted-homage_N.htm - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The USAToday list is based on the same complete list already posted in the article. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realize that. We should reference it so it doesn't look like we just made it up, which is what I thought we did. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The list that I originally posted a few days ago was provided by Disney to film reviewers to help them point out specific items that were references made by the filmmakers. Any other item that did not appear on this list, to me, would be (a) coincidence; (b) WP:OR/opinion; (c) possibly an official tribute, but not included on that list for some reason or other. SpikeJones (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Would like to point out that part of the fight-with-the-evil-dragon scene is very reminiscent of the ending of King Kong. Not sure if that's Disney and it's probably not official, so I'm not going near the actual article to make a change, but I'd just like to throw that out there.

No need to throw it out there -- non-Disney films were not on the original Disney-supplied list. Be wary of similarities that you notice "just because". A bad example: "the film is a tribute to Simon & Garfunkel, because they had a concert in Central Park and Giselle sings in the park too". Don't overthink it.SpikeJones (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the references mentioned (Rasputin's transformation in Anastasia) is actually about a Fox film, not Disney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.195.112 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What value, if any, does the list add to the film that keeps it from simply being trivia? A prose discussion noting that the film has many similarities/allusions to other Disney works would be good, but I don't see what a full list adds to the article. Its much like a discussion on a book versus a film adaptation. We do a prose paragraph discussing over all differences with a few set examples rather than doing a full list of every single change. The prose is good and in keeping with being encyclopedic, while the list is trivia and, I think, would only encourage original research and people constantly wanting to expand the list with their own views of possible references. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The list was provided by the filmmakers, so it is fact-based as opposed to WP:OR, coincidence, or mere opinion. That list has been referenced in print by reputable, citable 3rd-parties, so even if the list was pared down to just those items that appeared in those various articles, it would still qualify as encyclopedic from the viewpoint of commentary on the making of the film from the filmmakers. As the film was created to be a tribute to the Disney films of old, it certainly makes sense to include those purposely included tributes in the article (specifically, those tributes on that documented list as opposed to those left off the list, WP:OR being what it is). I do agree with your comment about the need to not encourage additions that aren't in the original list or from the viewpoint of how does one decide what is important enough to keep vs toss by the wayside; I believe changing from list to prose would only encourage those unnecessary additions (besides, while prose may be preferred, lists are an allowed WP style format... even in GA candidates). As you can see further down the talk page, someone did attempt to prose-ify the list. SpikeJones (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...I guess to me prose works better, but I can see it both ways. It might be good to solicit some input from others in the Film project though, as they might best be able to advise how to handle it and if the list is trivia or not (after all, movies include a full list of credits, making it fact, but that doesn't make the list of credits encyclopedic at all :) ). AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is a difference between a list of credits vs a list of items that the filmmakers purposely included in the film, as one is merely a who's who (not encyclopedic) and the other is the answer to "what did you do to the film that makes it an homage to earlier Disney films?" which could be used for future research for those studying the canon.SpikeJones (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

References: Article form?

Resolved

How's this?

Enchanted pays tribute to many of the classic Disney films, both animated and live-action. A lot of scenes, actions and dialogue were purposely included by the filmmakers to be specific references/tributes to classic Disney films. [1]

General tributes include the storybook opening, which is a tribute to the openings of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. The news reporter, "Mary Ilene Caselotti" is a reference to the voices of Aurora, Cinderella and Snow White- Mary Costa, Ilene Woods and Adriana Caselotti, respectively. The "kiss of true love" plays an important part to the end of the film, when Giselle is put under the spell of the poison apple. This is a reference to the only way Snow White and Aurora could be awakened from the curses that were put upon them. The final fight scene at the top of the tall building is a homage to similar climaxes in Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast. As with those scenes, it is seen with a blue hue and is accompanied by thunder and lightning. Also, the hero (or in this case, the heroine) fights off the villain with a sword. As villain attempts to throw the hero off the building, the villain falls to their own death. The closing credits also reference various past and future Disney films such as Fantasia, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, The Princess and the Frog and The Little Mermaid.

There have been a lot of references to Snow White in Enchanted. For example, Giselle’s initial personality is most similar to Snow White’s. The Happy Working Song is a homage to Whistle While You Work, as True Love’s Kiss is most similar to I’m Wishing/One Song. The Magic Wishing Well is a reference to the wishing well that Snow White sings into during I’m Wishing; The notes Snow White sings into the well is used as Giselle’s animal call. The poison apple(s), as well as the wicked queen Narissa and hag that she turns into are based on the Queen from Snow White (During the storybook portion of the film, Narissa also peers out of a castle window just as the Queen does at Disneyland). The candy apple Nathaniel gives Giselle bears a skull mark, similar to the one seen in Snow White after the old hag pulls it out of the poison. The law firm that Robert works at, "Churchill, Harline and Smith" is a reference to the songwriters for Snow White, Frank Churchill, Leigh Harline and Paul J. Smith. The cottage Giselle lives in during the animated portion of the film is loosely based off of the dwarfs’ cottage; Giselle even mentions that she hears a “house full of dwarfs” are “very hospitable”. Dopey is paid tribute when Giselle holds up two blue diamonds to her eyes, while Giselle actually confuses a little person for Grumpy. Edward mistakes a television set for a magic mirror, which is what the Queen uses in Snow White. Finally, at the end of True Love’s Kiss, Edward and Giselle are seen riding off into the sunset; this is a tribute to the ending of Snow White.

Cinderella, being the second Disney princess film, also has a few references featured in the film. One of the most obvious is during The Happy Working Song. While scrubbing the floor of Robert’s apartment, bubbles float around the room, all carrying Giselle’s reflection in them. This is a tribute to Cinderella's Sing Sweet Nightingale, where Cinderella is singing while scrubbing the floor, with bubbles floating around her. So This is Love is paid tribute during the ballroom scene, when the film isolates the “prince” and “princess” from the others around them; Robert and Giselle gaze into each other’s eyes, just as Charming and Cinderella did. Giselle uses Robert’s curtains and Morgan’s rug to make her dresses. This is a reference to the dress that Cinderella’s mice friends make for her, from things that her stepsisters weren’t using. Giselle goes to Morgan for help, saying that she didn’t have a dress for the ball, and it was too late to find a fairy godmother. This is a reference to Cinderella’s fairy godmother, who gave her a beautiful gown to wear to the ball, among other things. In addition, the poison apple’s spell takes effect when the clock strikes midnight, a reference to the spell wearing off at midnight in Cinderella. When Giselle, Edward, Pip, Nathaniel and Narissa enter “the real world” (and later as Narissa falls to her death), sparkling dust falls from their skin and clothes. This is most likely a reference to the fairy godmother’s magic; after Cinderella’s transformation and later while the magic is wearing off, magic dust is sprinkled. Edward stays at a hotel named “The Grand Duke”, most likely named after the character in Cinderella. During the traditional-animation part of the film, Giselle is brought to the castle in a carriage based on Cinderella and Charming’s wedding coach from the end of the film. Nancy’s last name, Tremaine is a reference to Cinderella’s step mother’s name, Lady Tremaine. Lastly, Prince Edward and Nancy receive their own “happily ever after” when Edward puts Giselle’s left behind slipper on Nancy’s foot, which happens to be the perfect fit. This is a tribute to the ending of Cinderella.

The animated characters of Enchanted seem to be loosely based on those from Disney’s third princess film, Sleeping Beauty. For example, Edward’s appearance was modeled on Prince Phillip’s, while Giselle’s animated appearance is most similar to Aurora’s than any of the other princesses. Queen Narissa’s character is based off of Maleficent’s. In addition, Narissa also turns into a dragon twice by the end of the film. This is what Maleficent does at the end of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent revealed to prince Phillip an unconscious Aurora behind her cloak, as Narissa reveals to Edward an unconscious Giselle. It is also said that the dance that Nathaniel does with Edward is a tribute to the dance Phillip and King Hubert did. Giselle builds her dream prince with her animal friends, much like Princess Aurora's forest friends use Prince Phillip's clothes to pretend to be the prince from her dreams. Robert and Morgan’s last name is Phillip, a reference to Prince Phillip.

After many years of Disney films that weren’t based on fairy-tales, Ariel of The Little Mermaid was the fourth Disney princess, and various elements of the 1989 film are referenced in Enchanted. For example, Giselle sings to her imaginary man, as Ariel does with the statue of Eric. Giselle’s transformation is very similar to the transformation Ariel experiences when Ursula transforms her into a human. Giselle’s wedding dress is almost exactly the same as Ariel’s. Giselle is the only other redhead “princess” since Ariel; after her shower, she is wrapped in a green towel, a possible reference to Ariel’s green mermaid tail. The jamaican beat of ‘’That’s How You Know’’ is a homage to Kiss the Girl and Under the Sea- songs sung by Sebastian (Giselle and Robert are seen riding in a rowboat, as Ariel and Eric did during Kiss the Girl). Perhaps the biggest tribute to the film is Jodi Benson’s role as "Sam", Robert’s secretary in the film. Jodi Benson voiced Ariel in The Little Mermaid, and during a certain scene, she is seen in an office with a fish tank. While Giselle gazes into the fish tank, an instrumental version of Part of Your World can be heard.

Beauty and the Beast is paid tribute to numerous times throughout Enchanted. For example, during True Love’s Kiss, a bell jar containing a rose can be seen. Had she married Edward, Giselle would have become a princess the same way Belle did. The ballroom scene is an obvious homage to the famous ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast. Both scenes feature the couple dancing under the chandelier, to a song sung from the perspective of an observer (in Beauty and the Beast it is the title song by Mrs. Potts; in Enchanted it is So Close by Jon McLaughlin). The camera angles are also very similar to the scene it references. Robert’s costume at the ball is similar to the clothes that the Beast wore during the ballroom scene in said movie. The biggest tribute to the 1991 film is during Edward’s channel surfing. Nathaniel tells Edward to stop browsing at a soap opera which stars Paige O’Hara, Belle’s voice. She plays a woman named Angela, a reference to Angela Lansbury, the voice of Ms. Potts. Other characters that are mentioned include “Jerry”, a reference to Jerry Orbach, the voice of Lumière and “Ogden”, a reference to David Ogden Stiers, the voice of Cogsworth. The background music of the show is similar to the song, Beauty and the Beast and the set design is based on the film’s bandaging scene. Although most would say that the magic mirror is a reference to Snow White, it could also be a reference to the magic mirror that the Beast owned.

Mary Poppins is referenced a few times in Enchanted. The birdseed woman from the bus (and later in the park) is a tribute to the birdseed woman seen during the song Feed the Birds. The divorcing couple are named after the parents in Mary Poppins, the Banks. The elderly yellow-jacketed man who dances during That’s How You Know had previously danced as a chimney sweep in Mary Poppins. Even Julie Andrews herself has a part in Enchanted as the narrator, heard at the beginning and the end of the film.

The troll’s face is similar to the gargoyle, Victor from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and he is wearing remnants of other Disney Princess' dresses as a loincloth. Among the remnants are sections for Snow White, Belle, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella. His earrings are made from Ariel’s shells. It was revealed by Kevin Lima that the troll is modeled on the giant from Mickey and the Beanstalk.

Although not specific “princess movies”, there have been a lot of references and tributes to other Disney works and future films. The troll, while being flung into the next kingdom, does the Goofy holler, heard in many other Disney films and shorts as a reference to Goofy. A short clip of ‘’Pink Elephants on Parade’’ from Dumbo is heard before Edward changes the channel on the television. The Italian restaurant that Giselle, Robert and Morgan eat at is called Bella Notte, a tribute to the song from Lady and the Tramp. The oven that Nathaniel throws the pizza into forms a face, which looks like Stromboli from Pinocchio. Giselle pulls Narissa’s sword from the ballroom floor. This is a tribute to The Sword in the Stone. A slightly off-modeled version of Pumbaa from The Lion King can be seen in the line for Pip’s book signing. Pip himself is a tribute to the common animal sidekicks found on both protagonist and antagonist’s sides. Pip is mainly a tribute to Abu from ‘’Aladdin’’. Judy Kuhn, the singing voice of Pocahontas, makes a cameo appearance as one of the residents in Robert’s building.

The two future “princess” movies, The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel are also referenced during ‘’Enchanted’’. ‘’The Princess and the Frog’’ is referenced twice during the film. The first is during True Love’s Kiss, when Giselle calls for more animals for their help; a frog wearing a crown can be seen. The second is during the closing credits, where a frog with a crown is seen being kissed by a woman. Rapunzel is referenced once in Enchanted, during That’s How You Know when Giselle sings along with the girl who plays Rapunzel in the outdoor theater.

  1. ^ "More enchanting, but obscure Disney details". USA Today. 2007-11-22. Retrieved 2007-11-23.

Keeping it as a long list looks really unorganized. So I figured make it into paragraphs, sorted by certain categories... thoughts? opinions? Criminally Vulgar (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You've put a lot of work into organizing this info, well done. My concerns are: (a) using phrases as "appears to be" or "could be" could lead someone to believe that the list consists of casual theatergoer observations as opposed to being based on a Disney-supplied document listing purposeful tributes. I know you mention this in the opening sentence, but still. (b) it's a bit hard to read in paragraph form, IMO. WP does not have a policy stating that all information must be in paragraph form, just that it's a preferred style. SpikeJones (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So perhaps, reword it? Or maybe just delete those that aren't 100% "official"? That would definitely shorten the paragraphs, probably making it easier to read. Or, we could just leave it as a list. I just wanted to make sure people agreed with it, before I took replaced it. 67.49.173.176 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)(sorry, forgot to login- Criminally Vulgar (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, Criminally Vulgar, for that list! Can we list the movie references under the specific movie titles? For now, I see a lot of repetition of the titles and some information is even repeated. Singyouranthem (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Criminally Vulgar, I believe this information was not merely trivial but interesting. It brought to my attention things in the movie that I did not noticed but enjoyed during the second viewing. Please return the information to the article. Perhaps under the title "Trivial, but fun." Removing it leaves the article lacking something more interesting. n/a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.142.115 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's right here: List of Disney references in Enchanted.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

princess marketing

regarding the inclusion of the WSJ article and no mention of what Zazzle is doing with their Giselle tshirts: the reasons Zazzle (a disney merchandise partner) has Giselle listed in the same category as the disney princesses is that they have no other category on their site to place her - making it the most logical choice. If zazzle had a category for "other", then she would go there. It's the same concept as including Pocohontas or Alice merchandise with other disney princess merch -- even though they are not official princesses (one piece of existing artwork notwithstanding) doesn't mean that those items couldn't be placed there for sales purposes. SpikeJones (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that it's odd that Giselle is featured front and center on Disney's own shopping page dedicated to the princesses, but I will stand by Disney's official statement in the WSJ as their business stance, and use the "she couldn't go anywhere else category-wise" excuse for her appearance there as well. SpikeJones (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Maid Marian was not a princess, and Belle and Esmeralda were not nobility at all. Pocahontas, as daughter of a chief, is probably acceptably called a princess. --BlueNight (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Locations

It would be interesting to add the actual New York City locations where foootage was shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.32 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The original "references to Disney films" list

Included here from the article's history merely for reference to the prose-ified version currently in the article, not for any needed commentary. Just thought it would be easier to find here if the prose version changes, t'is all. SpikeJones (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The List

There are many parts of this movie that were purposely[1] included by the filmmakers to be a specific reference to other Disney movies[2]. These include:

  • The storybook opening is a tribute to how Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty began. The book's location in the castle is based on artwork from Sleeping Beauty.
  • While Giselle herself has many traits similar to Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, and Belle, her character's personality is mostly based on Snow White.
  • During the initial animated segment where Giselle calls animals to her home, a frog is seen wearing a soap crown in a reference to The Princess and the Frog.
  • As she is building the Prince mannequin, Giselle looks through two blue gems the same way Dopey does in Snow White.
  • Animals often help the Princesses do chores, sewing, and other tasks. Giselle continues this tradition. She also calls the animals the same way Snow White does.
  • The song True Love's Kiss is a tribute to the songs I'm Wishing, A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes, and Once Upon a Dream. The construction of Giselle's dream prince with the help of the woodland animals is also a tribute to a similar scene in Sleeping Beauty.
  • Prince Edward has traits similar to Prince Charming, Prince Philip, the Prince from Cinderella, and Prince Eric from The Little Mermaid. His dance with Nathaniel is a tribute to the dance Philip had with King Hubert in Sleeping Beauty.
  • In both the animated and real world, Queen Narissa's transformation into a dragon is done similarly to Maleficent's transformation in Sleeping Beauty.
  • The way Giselle and Edward ride off into the sunset is a tribute to the end of Snow White.
  • Giselle's carriage is based on Cinderella's coach.
  • The troll is wearing remnants of other Disney Princess' dresses as a loincloth. Among the remnants are sections for Snow White, Belle, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella. His earrings are made from Ariel’s shells.
  • A reference to Beauty and the Beast in Giselle's treehouse is a bell jar containing a rose.
  • As the troll is flung to the next kingdom, he yells like Goofy.
  • While discussing possible places to rest while standing outside Robert's apartment, Giselle makes reference to "a houseful of dwarfs; I hear they're very hospitable."
  • A Muzak version of the song Part of Your World from The Little Mermaid can be heard when Giselle is gazing at the tank of fishes, and Sam the assistant is played by Jodi Benson, Ariel's voice in The Little Mermaid.
  • Sam is named after Sleeping Beauty's Prince Philip's horse Samson.
  • The divorcing couple are named after the parents in Mary Poppins, the Banks.
  • The name of the law firm, "Churchill, Harline, and Smith", refers to the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs songwriters: Frank Churchill, Leigh Harline and Paul J. Smith.
  • The bus driver's hair is shaped like Mickey Mouse's ears.
  • The birdseed woman is a tribute to a similar scene in Mary Poppins.
  • Snow White is referenced in a number of ways: the queen sending someone to kill Giselle; the poison apples in general, and the skull emblem on one of the apples specifically; the Magic Mirror; the Magic Wishing Well; the evil witch turning into the old witch (as well as the design of the old witch); the shot of the poison apple falling from Giselle's hand; and Giselle being laid on a bier. The shot of Giselle lying on the bier is based on the same shot from Sleeping Beauty. Both Snow White and Sleeping Beauty were referenced by Giselle being woken by a kiss.
  • During the That's How You Know musical number, the yellow-jacketed dancer also danced as a chimney sweep in Mary Poppins.
  • In the bandshell, Giselle interrupts a performance of Rapunzel, an upcoming film. Some of the trees on the set are inspired by trees from Sleeping Beauty.
  • The soap opera shown on the television is a tribute to Beauty and the Beast: it stars Paige O'Hara, Belle's voice in Beauty and the Beast. The character she plays on the soap is named Angela, a tribute to Angela Lansbury. The other actor on the soap opera is named Jerry, a tribute to Jerry Orbach. The actors mention a third character named Ogden, a tribute to David Ogden Stiers. The background music for the show is the song Beauty and the Beast, and the set design is based on that film's bandaging scene.
  • Another television program with Edgar Bergen and Mortimer Snerd is a clip from the Disney film Fun and Fancy Free.
  • When first cut to the TV, an audio clip from Dumbo is heard before Edward changes the channel.
  • The news reporter, Mary Ilene Caselotti, is named for Mary Costa, Ilene Woods, and Adriana Caselotti, who did the voices for Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, and Snow White, respectively.
  • The restaurant Bella Notte is a tribute to Lady and the Tramp.
  • The Grand Duke Hotel is named after the character from Cinderella.
  • In Morgan's room is a Belle doll, as well as a Cinderella storybook.
  • One of the residents in Rob's building is Judy Kuhn, who was the singing voice of Pocahontas.
  • Cinderella is referenced when the clock strikes midnight, and from the glass slipper being lost in the ballroom (and found again for Nancy).
  • Happy Working Song is a tribute to Whistle While You Work, and the lyrics also contain references to other films. The song's ending is similar to how Under the Sea and Be Our Guest both end.
  • The way the birds turn Giselle's dress into an apron, as well as the way they wrap a towel around her in the bathroom, are references to the way the birds act in Cinderella. The soap bubble reflections, the way the flies twist the dishcloth, and Giselle's use of Rob's curtains to dresses are also references to the film.
  • The way Giselle and Robert look at each other at the ball is a tribute to the similar scene with Cinderella and Prince Charming.
  • Robert's costume at the ball is the same style as the Beast's in Beauty and the Beast.
  • The song "So Close" is a tribute to the song Beauty and the Beast, from both the moment in the film the song is played, as well as that the song is sung from the perspective of an observer. The camera angles during the song are also a tribute to the same scene.
  • The confrontation at the ball is reminiscent of the one in Sleeping Beauty.
  • The glittery ballroom scene is a tribute to both Snow White's Someday My Prince Will Come and Cinderella's So This Is Love in how the film isolates the princess and prince from the rest of the scene. * Pulling the sword from the ballroom floor is a reference to The Sword in the Stone.
  • The final fight scene at the top of the tall building is a tribute to similar final fight scenes in Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast. As with those scenes, it is seen with a blue hue and is accompanied by thunder and lightning. Also, the hero fights off the villain with a sword; the villain attempts to throw the hero off the building; the villain falls to their own death.
  • Rob's girlfriend Nancy's last name, Tremaine, though spelled differently, was the last name of the Evil Stepmother in Cinderella.
  • The cutouts shown in the end credits reference various Disney films, such as Fantasia, Snow White, Cinderella, The Princess and the Frog, and The Little Mermaid.
  • Susan Sarandon's role as the evil Queen Narissa marks the second appearance as a lead Disney villain by an alumna of The Catholic University of America. Pat Carroll, who played Ursula the Sea Witch in The Little Mermaid, was the first.
  • The climax of the fight scene in which the villian is hanging onto a part of the building and then falls off when that part breaks off, as well as when Giselle leans out of a window and catches Rob as he's falling, are both references to the climax scene in The Hunchback of Notre Dame when Frollo falls off the cathedral when the gargoyle he's hanging from breaks off, and when Pheobus catches te falling Esmeralda. Also Giselle and Rob slide down the roof of the building in the same way that Esmeralda and Quasimodo do in Hunchback.

Other

Contrary to rumors that circulated when the film was released, the images in Times Square do not purposely contain references to the stars of the film. These are merely coincidences that happened to exist during filming. Some of those images include:

GA on hold

This is a very well-researched and well-organized article. There are only a few things it needs before reaching GA. I've marked a few places needing citations, but there are more. I'm especially concerned that the section outlining similarities to other films be absolutely free from OR. Right now it is pretty good, but there seem to be several one-sentence paragraphs without citations which are making OR claims and distracting from the better, cited prose. Drop me a note when this is all fixed. The hold will last for a maximum of 7 days. Wrad (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "similarities to other films", but if you mean the "official references to disney films" section, then the information that is listed immediately above this talk item is what was provided directly from the studios to film reviewers. Any additions or changes from the above list that are in the article do not have any official reference to them. However, there is a silver lining -- on the upcoming DVD release, there will be some sort of "pop-up video" or other official resource to all the official references. Once the DVD comes out, we can certainly stop worrying about citing each individual reference and instead point readers to whatever the DVD commenatary is for that. I expect that there will be some changes made to that section once the DVD comes out. SpikeJones (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the section I meant. It seems as though editors have been sneaking OR into this section, though it is largely good. This needs to be fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
When the list changed in the article from the bullet items from the original document to the requested prose-ified version, I stopped trying to identify the WP:OR items. This is one of those situations where a prose-version is not better than a list (and there's nothing in WP's style guidelines that require everything to be in prose form -- I believe this discussion took place earlier on the talk page here). Regardless, feel free to remove from that section of the article anything that is not on the list above, as I fully support that editing choice... or we simply wait until April for the DVD and reset the entire section then. SpikeJones (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

Since the original reviewer missed their deadline, I will re-review the article:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! Enchanted (film) has passed as a GA. Thanks to all who contributed!Limetolime (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns that the article was promoted to GA with questions of sourcing outstanding, especially since lack of sufficient cites may leave the content of "Official references to Disney films" open to original research questions. I'm not questioning the veracity of either the contributors or the content, just that there are a number of assertions in the section that are not clearly sourced. Section 2 of Good article criteria requires that the article, "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for . . . published opinion". There is only one Fact tag in the section, but there are a number of comparisons between the film and other Disney films where it is difficult to tell if the assertion comes from a published source or is an editor's opinion.
As I mentioned above, the original document (as paraphrased above on the talk page) was provided by the filmmakers. I understand your need for complete sourcing, but considering the film will be out on Blu-Ray in a few days, the need to refer to that original document is eliminated and we can refer all references to the Blu-Ray feature dedicated to identifying all such official references. If it's not on the disc, then it's not in the article. Easy enough. SpikeJones (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The placement of cites relative to statements makes it difficult to tell what is sourced and what is not. I realize that due to the nature of the section that this may require a ton of citations (citations that may be available once the D-Files segment on Blu-Ray is out), which leads me to ask if this level of detail is really necessary? Is the section intended to be an exhaustive compendium of homages and in-jokes, and does this best serve the article? Would it not be sufficient to significantly compress the section by: (1) concisely addressing what the writers did and why, (2) providing opinions from critics of the effect and effectiveness of this, and (3) include a number of examples to sufficiently illustrate what was done? This would mitigate the undue weight the topic receives space-wise and enhance readability of the topic.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In the original bulleted list (which, in my opinion, was easier to deal with than the prose version but I was overruled on that fact), specific items were cross-referenced with additional cites from newspapers and magazines that also received the full list but were more particular with which ones they decided to include. That is how some items were specifically cited but others remained referenced to the original doc. The reason it was included in the first place is that there WERE verifiable citations quoting the original document that could be used as a reference, and by including only those items in the reference would give us a base to draw from to decide what was or wasn't WP:OR. If it's removed in its entirety, it will certainly be added back by fanboys who feel it needs to be present. If it's summarized to just one or two items, then it will also be expanded on by fanboys who feel that it's missing items. SpikeJones (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Jim based on his edit note: you asked "the "kiss of true love" is quoted, shouldn't this assertion be sourced". What you see is a prose-ified version of the original comment (shown above). I have not had time to review the Blu-Ray disc info yet, but if you really want to go crazy, then snip all the references section out to the essence of "Kevin Lima is quoted as saying that there are thousands of references in the film. Some of them are (a) (b) (c). The filmmakers provided a full list on the Blu-Ray edition of the film." While this would remove what some may feel is vital information to the creation of the film, it would certainly address your request to cite every single item mentioned beyond what has previously been provided into a tight 5 sentence paragraph. SpikeJones (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

one small correction - it appears that the final item in the Disney doc ("Of course, true love's kiss") does not appear in the above summary. I recall it being there, so it might not have been in the version I thought I grabbed from the article history. Regardless, it was there at one point. SpikeJones (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Any concerns I had are gone now that the section is its own article. Compliments to both Ladida and SpikeJones for their efforts: the new article is excellent.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to split Official references to Disney films to subpage

Given the importance and space devoted to the numerous homages to other Disney works in this film, I'm recommending that most of the "Official references to Disney films" section to split off to an article of its own. Retaining some form of the first two paragraphs of the section in this article should provide adequate treatment here, and the same two paragraphs could be worked into a suitable Lead for the homages article. Certainly, this material is notable enough to stand on its own with a suitable link back to the parent article.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - I support splitting that section of the article off on its own. Proposed name? How does "List of Enchanted's Disney references" sound? ("List of" is important, "Enchanted" and "references" are required. Opinions requested.) SpikeJones (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - However, I agree with SpikeJones that the content should perhaps be listed instead of being written in prose. A list would allow each Disney reference to be clearly cited. Maybe "List of Disney references in Enchanted" is a better title. Regards, Ladida (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Ladida and SpikeJones make an excellent point: list format will facilitate thorough citing and resolution of original research issues. If consensus is to split the section off, then I suggest the Talk page section above, The original "references to Disney films" list, should be copied to the new article's Talk page as a source and guide for article development. An attractive table format would be nice. Since there seems to be a nice, small number of authoritative sources for the references, perhaps the Harvard referencing style could be employed, making verification and preventing duplications easier. I vote for "List of Disney references in Enchanted" as the article name.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have changed the prose back to the list. I also changed the heading to "Disney references" because Disney films are not the only things referenced. I couldn't merge the new version here because I used Harvard referencing as suggested so I decided to just make the new article and create the new paragraphs here. I have also removed some things from the prose version that I could not find a source for. Regards, Ladida (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve article quality

Hi, I glanced over the article briefly, so I didn't really look at it in depth, but I think that the article could be improved by adding a screenshot, possibly of an animated sequence. This would be important in discussing the film's story or filmmaking style. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, and animated screenshot would be nice. I would also suggest a shortening of the article's plot? I think this is very much near FA status. --haha169 (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Character articles

Articles should be created for the main characters in the film. Wikipedia has articles for all other main characters from Disney films so I think Enchanted should be the same. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage of screenshots

Yesterday, I removed two screenshots from the article: File:Enchanted opening scene.jpg and File:Enchanted ballroom scene.jpg. I removed them because the fair use rationales did not seem to comply with WP:NFCC. For the opening scene image, the rationale was that it illustrated traditional animation, but is there a reason to show this image to reflect the animation? Traditional animation, live-action, and even computer-generated animation are pretty commonplace in society, so descriptive text could have sufficed here. For the ballroom scene image, the rationale was to demonstrate the aspect ratio and to show the main character. I think that the difference in the aspect ratio could be illustrated with a free image (showing two outlines against each other -- one labeled animated, the other labeled live action). In addition, unless there is critical commentary about the look of a character, especially one portrayed by a living actor for which free images exist, showing the scene is not necessary. A free image of Amy Adams could be used in the "Cast" section, and perhaps the opening scene image could be placed beside the second paragraph of "Animation" and the rationale rewritten to match what filmmakers intended with her appearance. Also, either a screenshot of Pip or Narissa could be shown in the "Effects" section. Let me know if you have any comments about my assessment! —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Enchanted in Disney Digital 3-D

Enchanted is never re-released into theatres in Disney Digital 3-D in the US on November 21, 2012.

So it is or isn't to be released? If it is, can you please provide a source? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not. What I'd like to know is what started that rumor in the first place? - Jasonbres (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've left a note on the IP's talk page. This user has made a number of constructive edits, but at the same time posts stuff like this. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, but if you hear something first, please let me know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Adams singing

My research indicates Adams did her own singing. I saw the movie tonight, she was fabulous in the Central Park "That's how you know" production. Have we missed any facts found here? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, so you know all about WP:NOR, right? —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 04:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Geez-Louise! Did you read my (article) edit? There's no opinion in the edit! Caraumba! Admonitions like yours are what make this wiki a dreary place sometimes. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Reverted; agree with Duncan regarding your edit being WP:OR per your earlier comment above. SpikeJones (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Buddy, you guys are really way out there - perhaps you should read this. FYI: Your criticism of my ARTICLE edit, based as it is, solely on my TALK PAGE comment, really is a logical fallacy. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have walked into something I don't need to be in, but this seems to be getting too heated for what it is. Based on the edit summary for this edit, the only problem appears to be the formatting of the citation. I fixed that, so hopefully that much is taken care of. As to the content of the edit, I kinda have to go with the IP on this one ... the edit merely says she was praised for her singing, and the review in question does note her singing (if the reviewer was being critical, or at least giving her an "A" for effort, they'd have said something like "she sang her heart out, but it just wasn't enough" or something like that). It doesn't extrapolate and say "everyone has praised her singing ability", just that it has been noted. Of course, if this was the only praise and every other reviewer said her singing stunk, then it may not be appropriate. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the time to understand the validity of my edit. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
To the point - a single casual reference from a non-noteworthy source that praises her singing is not encyclopedic, and the entire edit should be removed. Besides, it is entirely misplaced in the paragraph... and if retained, should be relocated in the article to a more apropriate section. That said, I respect McDoob's opinion and trust that McDoob is correct in this case. SpikeJones (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Your respect is duly noted and appreciated, Spike. And as is often the case, you do raise another valid point that should be discussed. Do we possibly have a more noteworthy reviewer who has praised Ms. Adams' singing in Enchanted? While this particular review does not appear to be fan-written (and further, while positive, it wasn't glowing), it doesn't really have the notability of a review by the likes of Gene Shalit, Roger Ebert and so forth. Can the IP possibly provide another, more notable source? At the same time, let me look and see if another location for this citation would work. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
PS I checked the reviewer's credentials here. While not as notable as some of the heavies in the critics community, she does appear to have a significant background as a critic (i.e., it's not some employee at the website that was asked "so, do you wanna review movies for us?"). The puzzle will be trying to fit this into the "reception" area instead of where it is now. I'm thinking it belongs in the paragraph discussing the praise heaped on Amy Adams' performance, but I'm having a time getting it to work. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I am utterly appalled at the amount of mincing and prancing around such a minor edit. That so many editors have recently leaped into the fray, following me from page to page, reverting perfectly harmless edits of mine, is astounding. I took the time to draw attention to the quality of Adams' singing as I found her to be quite good in the Central Park scene and I estimated that others likely felt the same way. That I found a reasonable source which modestly praised her should not come as such a surprise - she was indeed very delightful in that number. Frankly, this episode highlights the essential flaw in Wikpedia: There is an esconsed loose confederacy of admins who seem to think that all knowledge can indeed be referenced back to profoundly surperb web links. However, such a thing is simply not possible and never will be. The zealous persuit of reference perfection makes some old-timers on the wiki jaundiced towards "good enough" and overemphasized towards "perfect". It's this, more than anything, which keeps me as an anon. I do not want to be known by anything other than my edits. If my edits are true and meet wiki standards, my desire is to see them posted and stay posted. I have no interest in fighting the zealots who run roughshod in imposing their petty wills on others here. Look at my recent edit history and see the fanaticism recently meted out on my edits by a few. It's petty foolishness and is symptomatic of clannish myopia. PS: My talk page is indeed mine - because, as I have stated before (see history there), I lease my IP and no one but me can post from that address. And frankly, it's the petty stalking of me page to my talk page which I find most offensive of all. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that came out of left field, didn't it? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to do. In my opinion, when it comes to Wikipedia's pop-culture articles, it's not about perfection but more about "does this person's words carry enough weight?". I looked it up, and like I said, while Ms. Murray is not a heavyweight critic, she is still a qualified movie critic and thus is a—wait for it—good source for the edit.
Now my problem is the flow of the paragraph. I want to use this item, but at the same time I want it to read well and fit within the rest of the article. Where it stands now, in the paragraph about Amy Adams' role as Giselle, it stands out too much. I don't recall any of the other actors' sections describing the praise they got (and in some of the reviews I read while looking for another singing reference, James Marsden got more than a few accolades for his performance, too). In the "reception" subheading, there is a discussion about Adams, where I believe this type of information belongs. This paragraph, however, flows very well on its own, so I'm trying to figure out how to add it without putting words in other critics' mouths, if that makes any sense. I think it can work, but frankly it was rather late when I was reviewing it and maybe wasn't as focused as I could have been. I'll try again today.
That said, during my research I was looking for someone else to say they liked her singing. Unfortunately, I didn't find one. So that leads back to a concern I had earlier: while this reviewer is qualified to make such a statement, is she the only one making it? Praise for Amy Adams' acting was pretty much universal, even if the reviewer wasn't keen on the film as a whole. That is a notable aspect of the movie: reviewers may not have liked the movie very much, but they loved her performance in it. So, is one reviewer praising her singing ability, however modestly, merely a statistical hiccup?
--McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Who cares if anyone else likes her singing? There's plenty of things in Wiki articles which link back to only one source. The fact his Adams WAS praised for her singing by at least ONE reasonably competant assessor of singing talent. If we applied the same level of "proof" some seek about Adams singing to all other content on this Wiki, we'd have to excise about 80% of the content. People tire of belaboring such things. I know I do. Frankly, I really don't have a dog in the fight and before seeing this movie, had never heard of her. FYI: The VERY FIRST time I heard Carrie Underwood's voice, I predicted she would win American Idol. Along those lines, from my perspective, Adams sounded very nice in the Central Park scene. That I found one reputable source should be enough to vouch for her singing. Why it's not puzzles me. The bottom line is, I liked Adams' singing and if it's possible to draw attention to praise she's received, I feel it's the right thing to do. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP said I am utterly appalled at the amount of mincing and prancing around such a minor edit.. Yes, it is a minor edit. That means that it can be removed just as easily as it was added, so why the strong insistence that it remain included? SpikeJones (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
You are looking at this completly wrong. If an edit is factually true, has no particular POV and has a reasonable source, then BY DEFINITON an internet encyclopedia should include it. The essential ethos of low cost publishing is that one should add MORE information whenever possible, not less. Certainly, the fact that Adams' singing was well received is a fact worth publishing. The correct question to ask is: Why such a perverse insistance on keeping valid information OUT of this or any Wiki article? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Amy Adams is a terrific actress and singer" [1] 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that either Spike or I are trying to keep the information out of the article. In my opinion, articles on pop-culture, and Disney articles in particular, are ripe for fan-centric editing that strays from being encyclopedic. I know that my first edits on Wikipedia were as a fan, but during my three years here, I've learned to focus more on the substance and improve how they read and, further, what information is relied upon for them.
For what it's worth, I finally had the clearness of thought as to how to revise the paragraph in the "reception" section and incorporate the information you provided. The second source was added, but it would have been fine with the one already provided, too. Take a look at it and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks McD. I think your edit is great. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks McDoob. Continuing to beat the dead horse...the IP said If an edit is factually true, has no particular POV and has a reasonable source, then BY DEFINITON an internet encyclopedia should include it. The statement "Adams shaves her legs and armpits" is factually true and could very well have a reasonable source ("her hair-free skin glowed on camera" says Movie Dude).. but is encyclopedically worthless. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Spike - your kind of snide mockery is one of the things which ruins this wiki. Now, to answer your inane hypothetical... If this were an article about the intimate personal hygine and grooming habits of red-headed actresses named Adams, the shaving details would indeed be relevant. But... since this is an article about a movie - one with LOTS OF SINGING - then certainly the quality of the STAR'S singing IS RELEVANT. You do understand this, right? 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I will reply to your direct comment about me here as that is where you decided to make the post: if you don't like the wiki or the people who try to maintain some semblance of sanity in the pop-culture-focused articles, then don't participate. Bullying and insulting editors into accepting a minor edit (one that was poorly sourced, originally presented as WP:OR, and placed in the wrong part of the article at that) is not the way to win friends and influence people. Instead of becoming instantly defensive/accusatory whenever any of your edits are toyed with or rejected, try learning why that's the case and adjust your edits accordingly so you can begin playing well with others. Just a suggestion. SpikeJones (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Spike, you are not being accurate nor collegial here and frankly, I think your tone speaks for itself. You were indeed snide and mocking in your comment and my reply is on point - a movie with much singing lends itself to commentary about the singing ability of the stars. Additionally, there was nothing "POV" or "OR" about my article edit and your inability to see that is your problem - and your problem alone. At this point, McD has helped me with my edit and there is no reasonable basis for you to continue to harangue me. Therefore, unless you are interested in being nice to me, please stop speaking to me on this page about this edit at this time. Thank you. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Andalasia merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Andalasia merged to the main article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Andalasia should be merged here. There is insufficient material to support an article on that fictional place, and nothing about it that can't be adequately covered here, if it isn't already. bd2412 T 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyedit of Plot section

I have done as much as I can with the Plot section as far as general copyediting goes. I have inserted a Clarify message, as the actions of Pip are stated as having foiled the henchman's attempt "again", but there is no mention of the first occasion, as far as I can see. Anyway, the section will be best edited by someone who has at least seen the film (and this is not me). --Soulparadox 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


I believe the plot section is well explained but one piece does not seem to fit in place. After being told about how Giselle appears in New York City and we are introduced to Robert, it tells the audience how he is preparing to propose to his girlfriend. That should be taken out and added in the next paragraph where it discuss the meeting of his girlfriend and Giselle. Casper1222 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCF

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) - an editor has objected to the guideline being applied to this film In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In what way? - SummerPhDv2.0 14:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Considering the dearth of reliable sources calling any other film topic we cover here "Enchanted", I find the comments in support compelling. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


Enchanted (2007 film) → Enchanted (film) – This was the title until recently when the article was moved, presumably to accomodate the creation of Enchanted (1942 film). However, I found few if any sources indicating that the 1942 Czech picture was ever called "Enchanted", so I moved it to its original title, Okouzlená. That makes the date unnecessary here, as there are no other articles for films titled "Enchanted". It seems vanishingly unlikely that this would cause any confusion, so policy would recommend we go with the more WP:CONCISE title for this much more prominent film. Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea.--Cúchullain t/c 14:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose this move (see below as I think another move is warranted) per comments by In ictu oculi below. With the existence of an English language 1998 Enchanted film that does not currently have an article and WP:NCF that basically says with multiple films all are disambiguated with date unless one of the films is primary for the topic, which is in this case Enchanted, the root article itself. I do note that in looking at that disambig page that a good case could be made for moving Enchanted to Enchanted (disambiguation) and making this article the Enchanted primary. That would be a solution that would make the most sense to me now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Fuck me, an admin too! Jesus wept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
RMs aren't necessary for uncontroversial moves, otherwise the "move" button would be restricted to admins. I moved Okouzlená for the reasons I gave: I found few if any sources that referred to it as "Enchanted", so I moved it to its actual title.--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Your move of the 1942 film looks incredibly WP:POINTY and borderline disruptive. Poor show for an admin. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Anything can look bad when you don't assume good faith. I'm not sure what "point" could possibly be made with that move, but something I've done upsets, you I apologize.--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see what was problematic about the move. They were bold in moving it and explained why. Maybe there could have been a multiple page move requested instead, but I see nothing nefarious here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support since I also cannot find evidence of the 1942 film being called Enchanted. There is also a 1998 film listed at the disambiguation page, but a search for reliable sources turned up nothing to establish notability. Am fine with the 2007 film being at Enchanted (film) unless there is evidence to warrant disambiguation. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0175989/ Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    Geraldo Perez, I actually planned to reply to you but decided not to! :) IMDb is not considered a reliable English-language source, which is needed per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, WP:UE says, "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject." Instead of disambiguating Okouzlená, we could just list on the disambiguation page something like, "Enchanted, the literal translation for the 1942 Czech film Okouzlená", if that is what "Okouzlená" would mean in English. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    I am aware of WP:RS/IMDB, but the fact that the article does exist there is evidence that it may have been distributed using that title. this indicates it was distributed in the UK using Enchanted as a title. Worth looking in to to see if a reliable source does support release with that title. I have no issue with the film article being under its original language title if we can't reference usage of English title. If this article is moved as being primary a hatnote that points to Okouzlená should be included in this article as Enchanted is a reasonable search for that film and unlikely English searches would be looking for the original title. I agree Okouzlená should also be listed in the Enchanted (disambiguation) page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose - the 1942 film is called Enchanted. Film Fan 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case.--Cúchullain t/c 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's the article, incase you missed it - Enchanted (1942 film). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Missed the article I linked in the RM? The point is that there's no evidence based on reliable sources that the film was ever called "Enchanted".--Cúchullain t/c 14:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enchanted (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ ""Enchanted" pays homage to other Disney films". Reuters. 2007-11-23. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
  2. ^ "More enchanting, but obscure Disney details". USA Today. 2007-11-22. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Enchanted_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1126395360"