Talk:Popeye (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Popeye (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Comic book / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comics: Films Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Got a copy of this charming film on DVD (reliving childhood) and the DVD release seems to have a few different things compared to my memory.

One that stood out was there now a musical number during Bluto's destruction of the house (I'm Mean) whereas my memory is that Bluto gets angry and wrecks the house (without any song).

Is there any information on songs that were not included in the original release, but seem to have been re-instated for the DVD release? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm commentaries (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2007 July 30 (UTC)

To answer the above unsigned question, the original theatrical release did contain the song (I'm Mean) while Bluto was destroying the house. I believe there is an edited for television version that cuts out "I'm Mean" and also cuts out the song "I Yam What I Yam" from the Horeseracing scene. It's been ages since I have seen this on TV though, so I don't know if the current TV version still has these cuts. Grimesby (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liking/Not Liking Spinach

I removed a big chunk of text from the "Production" section about the history of Popeye and spinach, including a detailed description of a Mad Magazine parody of the movie. There were no citations and a few weasel words, plus it doesn't really need that much detail in the "Production" section. If someone wants to add a section on differences between the movie, comic, and cartoon, that would be a better place for it. Thonan (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's Large

Somehow "He's Large" got left out of the playlist. Don't know where it goes. http://www.lyrics5.com/videos.html?vid=cRUa_E1CugU . Student7 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be WP:OR for me to "observe", the scornful/offhand attitude of the supposedly "supportive" woman's chorus is reminiscent of the Pirates of Penzance "Poor Wandering One" (Take any heart, BUT ours! :). Student7 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material

I've removed a great deal of unsourced material from this article, which has been tagged since May of 2010. See here. If you can find sourcing, please reinsert! Doniago (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot synopsis reads like a bad third-grade book report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack NOT available for digital download

This article mentions twice that the soundtrack is available for digital download. I checked itunes and Amazon mp3 and NEITHER have it for sale...is this outdated information or am I crazy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.219.78 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 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: Both sides have reasonable arguments, and there isn't enough support for either position to constitute consensus. Closing as no consensus. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye (1980 film) → Popeye (film) – There is no other article on a Popeye film and Popeye (film) redirects to Popeye (1980 film). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the 1930s film is also a film, albeit short. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The other article is at Popeye the Sailor (film), so hatnotes/distinguish tags should be used. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The other film has a different title. kennethaw88 • talk 03:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The title helps to disambiguate this film from Popeye (2016 film). Fortdj33 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, Lugnuts, and kennethaw88. A hatnote will suffice for the 1930s film with a different name, and the 2016 film appears to be such a speculative idea that we won't be having an article on it for a while per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If that situation changes, this article can be moved back to 1980 film again. — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and instead fix the redirect from Popeye (film) to point somewhere more helpful... maybe Popeye (disambiguation) but that DAB would then need some work itself, which is a good idea anyway. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: you've opposed the move, but you haven't given a reason. There is no other film called "Popeye", so your suggested re-targeting of the redirect is not necessary. A simple hatnote to the film with a different name will do. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is splitting hairs frankly. An implied reason is that the case has not been on balance established above, remembering that the onus of proof is on those supporting. Also implied is that the current setup is unhelpful to the reader, that's what somewhere more helpful means. Disagree that the retargeting is not necessary. As well as the existing film and the projected one, there's Popeye's Voyage: The Quest for Pappy, which at 49 minutes is certain to be one thing that people are looking for when they search for Popeye (film) (however they search). Others will be surprised (as I was) that the current project is only the second Popeye film. The redirect should take them to a list of the three possibilities at least. Not quite sure how to best achieve this. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrewa -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No other films called "Popeye"; the differently-titled 30s short can be handled with a hatnote more easily than just sending all readers to the dab page. The 2016 film is still a matter of WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the only thing called Popeye that is a film Red Slash 03:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Use a hatnote to direct readers to Popeye the Sailor (film) per WP:TWODABS. Remember, Popeye (film) already directs here. — AjaxSmack 03:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In my mind, Popeye the Sailor (animated cartoons) is primary topic for "Popeye (on) film". "The Sailor" is just a subtitle, and we often omit subtitles if they aren't required for disambiguation. The year is helpful disambiguation. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Robert Altman quote on “Popeye” as a flop?

I can remember the essence of a quote from Altman responding to the question of “Popeye” having been a flop, which was along the lines, “If that is the case, then I wish that all my movies could have been as big flops as “Popeye”…!”, on the basis that at the box-office it was in fact one of his bigger “hits”, and financially it had been better for him than some critical favourites. Does anyone know of a source for this, or another quote which expresses the same sentiment, as I think it would make an interesting balance to the impression that this was some sort of low-point in Altman’s career, for which he might have been embarrassed. Jock123 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read the LA Times? If he said it once he probably said it in several places but at least in an interview with the LA Times[1] he expressed the same sentiment when Altman said:

Quintet (1979)and Popeye (1980): You know, I am actually shocked when somebody says “Popeye” is a failure. I have this review from Rolling Stone and he lists my failures: “Secret Honor,” “Quintet” and “Popeye.” Well, “Quintet” I can understand, but “Popeye” is a highly successful piece of work, especially in its afterlife. (The film grossed $60 million, despite mixed to bad reviews, and has been a consistent seller over the past decade on home video.)

-- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 April 2017

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: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye (1980 film) → Popeye (film) – There is no other article with the title Popeye film, therefore, disambiguation appears to be unnecessary. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I just added a hatnote to this article to direct wayward readers to Popeye the Sailor (film) per WP:TWODABS. Remember, "Popeye (film)" already directs here. — AjaxSmack 16:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and my previous post, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per "Support" !votes both current and those in the 2015 discussion. Sole film title that bears this exact form. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mymis (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the addition of a link to information on the upcoming(?) film in the hatnote. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mixed reviews

I recall this film receiving mixed reviews, or very negative reviews. However after checking the sources as of 2017 Metacritic gives the film a score that counts as "generally favorable reviews" on their scale (based on 14 reviews. The article previously included a lower score (but there was not even a proper inline reference to Metacritic, let alone an archived version of the page) that claimed the reviews were mixed based on only 7 reviews. The article reflects the information currently available from the sources.

I mention this discrepancy to warn readers and so that editors are aware that the article may need work to indicate that the film has over time received more favorable reviews. This is a known problem with review aggregators being skewed by later review scores such as when films are rereleased on DVD or bluray but that don't accurately reflect that the film didn't do very well at the time it was first released. -- 109.77.213.69 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the Web Archive, the earliest information I was able to find is a copy of the Metacritic page for Popeye from 2012 and at that time the film had a score of 48% based on reviews from 7 critics, indicating "Mixed or average reviews".

(Note Metacritic started in 1998. It may be possible to find versions of the page older than 2012 under a differents page names, or slight variation of the same name.)

So while we cannot be sure that the contemporary reviews were negative we can see reviews were consider mixed and have become more positive over time, if anyone wants to improve the article to include further explanation then they could use those archived pages, to properly explain that As of 2012 the film had only 7 mixed reviews but that As of 2018 (perhaps due to some sort of DVD reissue) the film had 14 generally positive reviews. -- 109.79.93.35 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NY Mag/Vuture 2012 "The resulting movie flopped with critics and didn’t win over audiences like the filmmakers had expected." [2] -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post 2006 "The film, starring Robin Williams, brought near-universal critical condemnation." [3] so the general perception was that critics hated it, something the skewed figures from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic simply do not represent. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]