Talk:FernGully: The Last Rainforest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

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

A beautiful movie[edit]

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

'Don't see why not. Koyae (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Film articles do not have a character section nor does this one warrant it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it does! Siameseare ||| Ventriloquist: My lips didn't move! Scarface: So what?! You're a ventriloquist! 05:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree! ScarfaceDummy Talk Contributions 07:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I know this is an old conversation, I just want to add my weight so that somebody new doesn't come along and think a characters section has been A-okayed. It seems AnmaFinotera is the only user in this discussion that has read wikipedia's guidelines. As far as 'characters' are concerned, information should not exceed one or two lines, preferably referenced, in the cast section. For an example see the good article Avatar (2009 film). There should not, under any circumstances, be a separate Characters section. Freikorp (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup labels[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Yes, the comparison is made at Avatar (2009 film). I do not think we need to mention the comparison here; it has no direct bearing on this topic. Erik (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Considering that the sources cited currently do not actually include statements from Cameron or any of Avatar's creators, I don't think it is appropriate to include the comparison here. Jarnhalr (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the "fact" listed comes across as nothing more than a weak attempt to bash Avatar (because it probably is). There is no evidence that Ferngully was actually a source of inspiration for Avatar, or even that the "similarities" are anything more than the standard comparisons one can draw between several movies. (There's nothing on the Bad News Bears page stating "thematic and plot elements from The Bad News Bears were later seen in the 1986 film Hoosiers" or anything on the Rocky page about Kung Fu Panda.) On top of that, even as personal analyses, how can the cited sources be considered concrete proof? How can they be considered anything more than the opinions of minor critics among several, quite possible more worthwhile, other ones? Petty jabs don't belong on an encyclopedia page. (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree entirely. Firstly the 'sources cited' do not need to include statements from Avatar's creators. If we only accepted criticism from people criticising themselves, well, that just pisses all over wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I also find the IP's comment that this is a "weak attempt to bash Avatar" completely laughable. Independent sources have commented on the similarity in plot elements, and that is what is mentioned in the article in one line, nothing more. As per WP:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Commentors have made a connection; we are not going to suppress their opinions just because some of you happen to disagree with them. There is nothing stopping you from finding sources that disagree that Avatar borrows plot elements from Ferngully and then adding them to the page. Just because you've found another page that does not state plot elements were borrowed from another film means absolutely nothing; did reliable sources make a connection? If so, nothing is stopping somebody from adding that information, just because nobody has done it yet does not mean that the article is correct in not stating such claims. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't agree, but you've convinced me of nothing. The line as it was when I made my last comment clearly stated the claim as a fact, while you yourself admit that it is a matter of opinion. As neutrality seems to be important to you, I'd think the problem in this would be clear to you especially. (The point of noting what Avatar's creators haven't said is that this is what it would take to make this statement as a fact. It is not uncommon for creators to cite sources of inspiration.) What's more, what that comment (and even the new, revised version of it) adds to this page is questionable, as it is first and foremost a criticism of a different movie. There is nothing wrong with listing qualified opininions in the appropriate place, but to cite them as the truth, especially when it is something so debatable, is a blatant bias. (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've rewording the one line in the article to make it seem more neutral to those taking offence from it. I am very open to further suggestions on rewording. Freikorp (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes yes, after reading it again I noticed it came across as more of a fact, hence the rewording. I agree we shouldn't state opinions as fact. Anyway, what are you suggesting we do from here? I don't see any problem anymore. I see two references from reliable sources backing up an opinion. We're not telling people what to think, we're letting them read the references and decide for themselves whether or not plot elements were borrowed. When I read that line, I see how this film may have had an impact on something much bigger than it ever intended too, (regardless of whether it did or not, people have commented on it, and that is all that is required for inclussion on wikipedia) which aside from being relevant to this article, is fairly interesting. Freikorp (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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

Edit request from, 8 November 2010[edit]

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

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

Listing order of characters?[edit]

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

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

Publication date of book or novel[edit]

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

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:FernGully: The Last Rainforest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • DAB link to Geoffrey Blake
  • numbers from one through ten are written as words per MOS:NUM
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Refs for authors of soundtrack?
  • I added another inline citation to the Allmusic review, which backs up the artists and album length, amongst other things. Freikorp (talk)
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  • ISSNs for newspapers?
  • Added ISSN's for all offline newspaper sources. Freikorp (talk)
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Hi Tomandjerry211. Thanks for your review. Let me know if you want me to do anything else. Freikorp (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Passing anyways, but would you check this?