Talk:Peter Rabbit (film)

This article already exists.

I'm sorry, but this article already exists. You can see for you yourself if you don't believe me. Peter Rabbit (2018 film) Superchunk22 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Poster

Can yall please help me out with fixing this please dont delete it Jstar367 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Country

We've got a source that this is an American film. There have yet to be any sources presented that explicitly label it as Australian. The latest source cited merely says that one of the production companies is Australian. It is original research to label the film itself as Australian just because one of the production companies is Australian. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Several of the production companies are Australian, and it was filmed in Oz. The film is a co-production. That's not original research. That's how it works. — Film Fan 23:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How it works is that we cite it a reliable source who labels it appropriately. We have done so, and they said it was solely American. Whether it's Australian or not is now original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, except it's not a reliable source. — Film Fan 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Also original research, but I stopped watching the film after about 20 minutes because although the voices and setting are English, the feel is of a Hollywood movie, specifically what I did not want to see. I was surprised not to see any mention of this in the reception-section. There is even a stab at English English with "tomayto tomahto, potayto, potahto". More appropriate would have been something like "rather rether, father fether". :) DirkvdM (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Animation

Can anyone add a source that Sony Pictures Animation is involved with the film? — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Animation is indeed, involved with this film. It would be not too much to ask if anyone would please add the studio's source in this. - talk

The source we currently have says they are not involved. If you think they are involved, as you say, provide the source per WP:PROVEIT and explain why the current source is wrong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe your "source" should go see it. I just did about an hour ago and up on the screen, in letters approximately three feet high, was SONY PICTURES ANIMATION. Should I have taken a photo ? 116.231.75.71 (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:Sarcasm is a great way to get a point across. Of course the real reason is that the film wasn't released at the time the issue came up so we didn't have the final credits available to extract information from and had to rely on other reliable sources instead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

Change Matt Lucas to Colin Moody for the voice of Benjamin Bunny Jessiesimmonds (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Please Update Rotten Tomatoes. 61% With 23 Reviews And 5.9 Average. 143.112.144.129 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. qwerty6811 :-) (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Check Critical Response Reference 25. It Is Same Page But Content Changed. Equal Change Made At Maze Runner Death Cure And Cloverfield Paradox With No Problems. I Do Not Understand Why This Not Allowed? 143.112.144.129 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done (Rotten Tomatoes says it has 28 reviews and a 6/10 average) — MRD2014 ^Talk 00:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Add Plot and Change Cast Member

Could you please either provide a detailed plot or at least set up a plot expansion template? Also, there have been reports that Colin Moody, and not Matt Lucas, voices Benjamin Bunny. https://apnews.com/cffe00bd9aa34fb79fba07e9439f615b/Review:-Earnest-'Peter-Rabbit'-sure-to-delight-young-fans 72.36.113.20 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Plot

It's already Satuday, and a plot has not been added. Could someone please expand the plot section? Znelson2 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Allergy bullying"

I'm wary of adding this yet per WP:NOTNEWS, so I'll leave it here for the moment: the Guardian is reporting on a petition and boycott of the film over its treatment of people who have food allergies. It seems prudent to wait until Sony responds. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There are now articles from at least three countries (the U.K., U.S., and Australia) about the "allergy bullying," so I went ahead and created the section. Waiting for Sony's response doesn't seem to make sense, as we have no idea when-or even if-they will respond.  Gary D Robson 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary D Robson (talk • contribs)

I support this section's inclusion, especially since the film producers have now responded about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Y done - thanks to Gary D Robson for starting the section: I've added Sony's response ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Rabbit siblings' parents

Is Josephine Rabbit their mother's name in the film?

What about their father?

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The little boy that eats a dollhouse pillow up at McGregor's Toy Shop

Does anybody know the name of the child actor that played a little boy that eats a dollhouse pillow up as one of Thomas McGregor's customers in "Peter Rabbit"? I know for a fact that he is also in another movie or so, and not to mention some TV shows, and commercials and ads as well.

Box Office Precision

Geraldo Perez. I Am Sure That You Have Misinterpreted Comment Of TropicAces. If Box Office Millions Is Whole Number Then .0 Is Not Necessary. However If Not It Needs A Decimal Point. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@IUpdateRottenTomatoes: If you are showing the accuracy to tenths of millions the .0 is definitely part of accuracy presented and needs to be shown. You can't truncate it as that means you are showing displaying accuracy to millions for that number and not tenths. The .0 is necessary as that is the only way to indicate the accuracy being used. If you are going to change the displayed accuracy to millions all the other numbers need to be rounded the same to maintain consistency. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To add - see MOS:UNCERTAINTY about consistency in presentation of precision of numbers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

TropicAces I don't particularly care if the data in this article is displayed to tenths of millions or whole millions as long as the accuracy and proper display of said accuracy is consistent when displaying the same and related data throughout the article as MOS:LARGENUM requires - The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context - the context here being the same info in different places in the same article. For box office numbers under 100 million display to tenth is likely best, though. I also expect to see rounding done correctly as a recent edit seems to imply that is not necessary for some reason or unless there is some project level consensus that someone can point me to that requires truncation of this data instead of rounding and that overrides the MOS for display of large numbers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez like IUpdateRottenTomatoes said, $56,909,266 does not round up to $57 million and I feel it’s disingenuous to say a film has grossed (ex.) $57 million when in fact it’s below that. And to put .0 just looks awkward. These two guidelines are how I see every film page and infobox run. TropicAces (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces Since you disagree with my math, let's use wiki functions {{#expr:56909266/1000000 round 0}} leaves 57, {{#expr:56909266/1000000 round 1}} leaves 56.9. Using .0 is not awkward it is required by MOS:LARGENUM when displaying to tenths, no matter what personal aesthetics say. Other than pointing to other articles that appear to be displaying the information incorrectly and not following the manual of style, is there some film project requirement that we ignore the MOS in the display of this information. As for displaying $57 when the raw date is below that, that is the result of proper rounding and is correct for the accuracy. Again I am perfectly happy to see accuracy to tenths of millions as long as it is displayed correctly and you don't want milestone events to be masked and that includes displaying the .0 when it is the result of the rounding. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To add a bit, I did some looking at template:infobox film/doc about the gross attribute and the instructions say use rounded value and point to this film project archive discussion about the issue. I believe it supports my points above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Geraldo Perez well the “0” in 56,909,266 doesn’t round the 9 up, here’s a link to explain it http://www.softschools.com/math/topics/rounding_to_the_nearest_10th/ TropicAces (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces the 0 doesn't round the 9 up when tenths matter thus the 56.9 result when using tenths but it is ignored when rounding the 6 up as then you look at the adjacent 9 and not the 0 for rounding purposes. I gave the examples of how the embedded Wikimedia math functions figure the two roundings in discussion here. The 0 and 1 in the function is number of decimal places to round to. Wikimedia is doing the math correctly or a whole lot more than simple rounding is broken on this site. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

2601:8C:C300:3D5D:3CD8:3439:D29E:ADAF (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done? Based on your recent edits, I suspect you are trying to add this article to Category:2018 computer-animated films. I have done that for you. If you have a different request, please make a new request and describe the specific changes you want to make. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Box Office - US/Canada emphasis

The first two of the three paragraphs under Box Office imply that anywhere in the world that is not the USA or Canada is simply "other territories". (Despite the fact that a majority of the income has come from those apparently lesser places.) OK, there is some correction in the third and final paragraph, but this is an appalling example of US (& Canadian) centrism in this global encyclopaedia. How about putting global figures first? And de-emphasising the US and Canada just a tiny bit. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone ever gets to this Talk page and wonders what I'm talking about, I have fixed the problem myself. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I have had to fix it again because, without any explanation at all, USER:Surge elec has again demoted the world outside the USA and Canada to "other territories", even though the film made more money in those seemingly lesser places. Why do some editors never look at the Talk page or Edit summaries? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had changed it to how it is written at many articles I've seen. Anyhow, kindly change it to what you feel is right. Surge_Elec (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

As I already said, I already have. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait

Were is Lily bobtail? Googleboy587 (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The comparison

The consistent comparison of the rabbit to the mouse. Snoiled (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark Kermode

I have been reverted[1] and asked to discuss it. I added a review from Mark Kermode to the Critical response section.

Mark Kermode is one of the most reputable British critics (if not the most[2]). This film is based on British books, and the lead voice is played by a British actor. I would say it was reasonable to include his reviews in any film article, but particularly any film article with a British connection. (I think the reason his reviews are not used more often is that it is easier to reference print reviews, and he delivers only some of his reviews in print, usually for the Guardian newspaper). The trailer received a lot of criticism, particularly from British critics, as the film was clearly not in keeping with the books.

In his review Mark Kermode panned the film and said that no only would fans of the book be appalled (and it was a bit of a hyperbolic hatchet-job) he suggested anyone who could read would be appalled. (He also questioned why the film associated itself with the book at all, instead of making making an unrelated film about some other a cheeky rabbit). This echoes the earlier sentiments about the film not being in any way faithful to the books.

Kermode also called Corden "appallingly irritating", which very unusually elicited a letter of complaint from Corden's father, a regular listener to the radio show (also podcast) where Kermode does most of his reviews. Other critics described Corden as miscast, this is the same said more emphatically. I understand there might be some need to copyedit but I do not accept that a review from respected critic should be excluded entirely, and the revert deleted the review completely. (The review is coherent and reasonable, unlike the borderline trolling from Rex Reed that people see fit to include in some articles.)

If you think changes are necessary then please discuss what those changes might be. If you think the review should not be included at all, then please explain why? -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Mark Kermode also does best and worst of the year lists, he does a worst of the year so far list, and halfway thought the year he rated Peter Rabbit as the 3rd worst film of the year. His dislike for the film wasn't not temporary, it was sustained. I have not yet found the end of year list (and I think he may have done the worst of the past ten years instead). -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Absent a good reason, I'd agree with including Mark Kermode's views. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions welcome, if you could look at the specific edit[3] and think I need to take a more neutral point of view, or change the emphasis, or should have done it differently, do please comment.

Kermode's reviews don't often get mentioned in other publications (with the exception of him reviewing the same film in more than one place) and the Radio Times is actually separate from the BBC, although it didn't used to be. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

My only issue with that edit is that we now have 3 negative reviews and 2 positive ones, whereas Rotten Tomatoes suggests that actually there were more positive reviews than negative ones. I'll probably throw in a positive review or two to balance things out, but it's something to be mindful of when adding reviews to a film articles. (Also, two of the other reviews were written by British critics. Robbie Collin sometimes stands in for Kermode on Kermode amd Mayo.) Anywikiuser (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

By all means add more reviews, that's the best way to improve the article and to avoid undue emphasis and top critics such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are still conspicuously absent. I was simply surprised that I was even asked to explain the inclusion of another review in the first place, let alone a review from a most respected British critic, but I provided explanation anyway.

Also I should say that Rotten Tomatoes is very reductive, either positive or negative, whereas Metacritic is more measured, and of the 26 reviews they examined, they rated 9 positive, 16 mixed, and 1 negative. So don't get hung up on the overall scores but do add more reviews if you think the critics have something worthwhile to say (or you could even include more critics to make it clear they are repeating similar points, there are plenty pointing out that the film is very different from the books, or that Corden is miscast, but some are more harsh than others in how they say it, and their review of the film overall might still be considered positive). -- 109.76.131.229 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No smiles

In the cartoon, no one just smiles like that. And this is so in Russian. Laughing for no reason is a sign of foolishness.

Movie

I think we need to make a Peter rabbit 3 2600:100C:B238:FC81:11A:3440:503F:A650 (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)