Talk:Ratatouille (film)/Archive 1

Sneak Preview/ Future film tag removed =

Due to the fact that there was a special sneak preview on Saturday, I removed the "future film" tag. It's been shown once. Many people have seen it. The tag states "The content may change dramatically..." The plot has been finalized, I'm sure. Jrdaigle1000 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that Disney owns Pixar...

What, if anything has changed about Ratatouille? Ratatouille.com points to http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/

Is there a new release date? Has a trailer been released yet?

Has Disney/Pixar announced anything after this film?

I watched the Ratatouille trailer yesterday at my Cars screening. I just wanted to comment on something: I didn't remember seeing in the trailer that Disney was participating along with Pixar, but I see the Disney logo on the Ratatouille logo on the Wikipedia page. I knew that Disney has bought Pixar, but I thought it was too late for Disney to be involved in Ratatouille. --QQQ (6-10-06)

Before the merger was complete, because talks were so good, they decided to add Ratatouille into their second agreement. They basically wanted to make sure that IF the talks ended badly, that at least Ratatouille would be under both of them, giving them time to make a new deal till 2007. However, because the talks turned into a merger . . . and now that PIXAR is now under Disney and in charge of both PIXAR and Disney films (with those made at PIXAR carrying the name "Disney-Pixar") it doesn't really matter now. But basically, they ARE a team again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.220.224 (talk • contribs) .

Plot?

Well, all we know is that it is about a rat in a Parisan restaurant who is in love with Haute cuisine. But not enough is revealed, I mean, does the Chef know him? But it's like Pixar always did before the film's trailer came out, such as Cars- not much was revealed when it was first announced "Cars features a wide assortment of cars as characters who get their kicks on Route 66." I think more will be revealed.

If anyone finds any info, put it on the article. Corvette67

• Saw a Lasseter interview in Paris on Canal+ for the European premiere of Cars. Says it is a story of a rat in a restaurant who wants to become a cook.Hektor 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• • THERE'S A NEW TRAILER OUT! This tells a lot more of the plot and shows alot more actual movie footage! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI3t62ozlqQ Maybe someone who's better at writing can type this up in the plot section Catcher Block 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Okay, the trailer's been taken down now, but the plot seems to be: A kitchen boy who can't cook finds Remy (who can cook) and they team up to become "the greatest chef in Paris." Maybe someone who saw the trailer can write something up in the plot section about that...I think they might have shown some of the clip at an interveiw somewhere...?Catcher Block 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to be consistent with WP's use (or non-use, as it were) of blogs as source/reference items, can we look into correcting/updating the JHM reference (footnote #1) that discusses the reported plot?SpikeJones 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah there...

Can anyone verify this? Willshepherdson 15:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

are you talking about the supposed cast names? If so, I think we definitely need some sort of proof... because it reads more like the cast for a Dreamworks feature than any of Pixar's. 7/8 named characters with (arguably) A-list celebrities? I have strong doubt. Kendall 14:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

agreed...what should we do for the time being? Willshepherdson 20:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Patton Oswalt

Can someone provide a source verifying that Patton Oswalt is actually doing a voice? It keeps getting added without any proof. —tregoweth (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The blog at Jim Hill Media verifies that Patton Oswalt is voicing Remy. Mightyhog 14:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New Poster

There is a new poster at [1]. I can't get it up, but someone else should try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.18.184 (talk • contribs) .

Art Style

The style of Ratatouille seems to borrow heavily from Quentin Blake's caricature of rats in his various illustrations. The nose, ears, belly, and posture of the rats shown in the trailer are nearly identical to those seen in 'The Witches', in particular. Could this be added as a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TythosEternal (talk • contribs) .

Only if you find a reference for it. Powers ^T 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard pronounciation?

I've always pronounced the food as "rat-a-too-ee," what's non-standard about it? CrossEyed7 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it normally be pronounced more like "rat-a-twee" (as in, "oui" with a "t" in front of it)? Esn 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard means without those crazy dictornary signs nobody understands. --Wack'd About Wiki 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Release date

"It is scheduled for release on June 29, 2007 by Walt Disney Pictures."

Shouldn't this be June 28? As it will be first released in Australia on June 28.

Do films' release dates written from when the film will be first released in the world, or when they are first released in the films' own countries (in the case, the US)? The former sounds more logical if you ask me. --211.26.48.123 07:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be the date of the film's first release in the world, but other important release dates can also be mentioned. For example, if the film was first released in a film festival, you'd mention that but also mention the first wide release, and maybe the US release. It depends on the film. Esn 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Did you change the opening paragraph? If so, thanks. --211.26.122.77 03:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

merchandise

Not a fan of the merchandise-related "trivia" that had been added, so I separated it into its own section as the info wasn't exactly trivia about the movie at all. Anybody feel that it even needs to exist?SpikeJones 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Want to participate in a Pixar survey?

Please participate in my survey on Pixar characters. The results on the most likeable Pixar characters will be shown and updated on the first weekend of every month. We hope that you will comment and rate the characters. The survey is located at User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Thanks for your comments and ratings. ANNAfoxlover 21:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

can someone coordinate footnotes

the Brad Garret pair of interview are contradictary to each other or are both poorly written. Can we come to an absolute consensus of what it is he's trying to say in each?SpikeJones 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My take on it is that we should go with Auguste Gusteau (as the character that Garrett actually voices). First of all, MTV, I would think, is generally considered to be more "official" than About.com. Secondly, no other source mentions "Rousseau" as a character in the film, whereas Auguste Gusteau is mentioned not only in numerous sources, but most importantly, in the official Ratatouille website [2] and the Ratatouille page in the official Pixar website [3]. S@lo 03:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

John Ratzenberger is in Ratatouille!

Some of you guys don't think John Ratzenberger is in the film, well Brad Bird says him self that Ratzenberger is in the film here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8IgtVNAic User:71.123.3.238 04:42, 20 March 2007

Cite it then rather than wasting our time. See WP:ATT. WikiNew 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Regarding the discussion-starter's concern, most of us here, including myself, believe that John Ratzenberger will be in the film. However, Wikipedia has a policy stating that facts such as these stated in articles must be attributable to a reliable source (which means that blogs, fansites, etc. are more or less excluded, unless they provide some very solid evidence that the information is true). I've seen the YouTube video that you posted, and had Brad Bird said, "John Ratzenberger will be in Ratatouille," in the video, then the John Ratzenberger info would have been added to the article, more likely than not (which is exactly why Peter O'Toole is already included in the cast list). Unfortunately, Brad Bird never explicitly stated whether Mr. Ratzenberger will in fact be in the film (he may have hinted that Ratzenberger will voice a character, but the fact of the matter is that the nature of his statement remains ambiguous). To sum up, most of us believe that Ratzenberger will be in the film, but that wouldn't suffice unless we have a reliable source to back up our claim. S@lo 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(dang WP and its database issues, I tried to post this earlier). Agreed with S@lo. In the video at the 3:36 mark or so, Brad Bird specifically addresses the question of whether Ratz will be in the movie or not in an extremely vague manner -- words to the effect of "we've had seven hits with him... I may be tempting fate". By saying "tempting fate", the phrase can imply that Bird is tempting fate by *not* having Ratz in the movie just as much as it implies that Ratz IS in the movie. He never actually says "yes".SpikeJones 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I still question the "confirmation". All the cited article says is that "comingsoon has confirmed.... will be in R." They do not cite their sources, so how can we use that as a WP source? They should fall into the same WP:VERIFY rules that blogs do. SpikeJones 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (not saying he's NOT in it, but we need to be consistent in our confirmation source requirements SpikeJones 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

The ComingSoon article in question can be found by clicking on the following link -ComingSoon interview. I am a little surprised that we haven't found this article before, considering that it has been available since July 2006. With that said, John strongly hinted during this interview that he will voice a character in Ratatouille. However (and here's the big "however"), John also said, during the time of the interview (which was about a year ago), that he has not done any voice work for the film. Because of that, I'd like to keep this topic of discussion open to debate. S@lo 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

COME ON! HE IS GOING TO BE IN THE FILM! (SORRY FOR YELLING!) --58.179.224.128 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to SpikeJones recent edit regarding John Ratzenberger: Just out of curiosity, did Dancing with the Stars actually show a clip of John Ratzenberger's character in the film (hence the word visually)? I don't watch the show so I wouldn't know. :) S@lo 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The show had a behind-the-scenes clip of Ratz doing voice recording (looping, perhaps), along with a clip of the character being voiced with the track that Ratz had done. From what I could tell, the scene was where the maitre'd (played by Ratz) was telling Skinner that the critic liked the soup that Remy made. SpikeJones 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the character name "Maitre’D"? or is that what he play? Pixar is 09:43, 24 April 2007

It's the character he plays, as far as one could tell from the clip shown on ABC. Obviously, we'll know more closer to movie release time. SpikeJones 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean the French Waiter? User:71.123.1.209 (16:18, 24 April 2007)

Please sign your posts, and remember to phrase your question in a manner that gives people reference to what you're talking about. I'll assume that you mean my original edit where I was the first to state the Ratz/Dancing With Stars/Ratatouille connection? SpikeJones 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem

To Pixar is, uploading images without copyright information is in violation of a free encyclopedia. Please change those images' copyright status to "some website" to film-screenshot or Disney character instead. Also, those character descriptions sound copyrighted. Alientraveller 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you change the copyright info.? Because I don’t know how. User:Pixar is 09:51, 30 March 2007

I did so myself, but remember, you did not find those images on "some website". They are copyrighted film screenshots. I also removed the copyrighted bios. Alientraveller 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not know what to list them as so I put them as "some website". User:Pixar is 10:00, 30 March 2007

When you upload an image, you've got a list to select from. Pick movie screenshot instead. Alientraveller 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay! Will do. User:Pixar is 10:20, 30 March 2007

Pixar is, we need to know where you found the images. The missing copyright information is in violation of a "free encyclopedia". A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

IMDb as a source?

Just a question, why is IMDb not a valid source for information in Wikipedia as per this revision? --clpo13 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Although providing less freedom in editing than does Wikipedia, IMDb is a site that can be edited by its members, most of whom are not affiliated with the movie industry. IMDb is therefore an unreliable source of information when it comes to upcoming movies (and perhaps movies that have already come out, although not usually). To give you an example, IMDb once listed David Schwimmer as the voice of Emile in Ratatouille, which is obviously false. In fact, I will even go so far as saying that IMDb used the Ratatouille article in Wikipedia as a source; when Wikipedia then used IMDb as a source, a kind of "circular effect" in citing took place, if you will.

There are, of course, Wikipedia articles in which IMDb can be used as a source. For example, you can use IMDb as a source in the article entitled "Films considered the greatest ever", as IMDb's Top 250 list is more or less an accepted form of movie popularity polling/voting. Also, note that IMDb cannot be used as a source, but it is common practice for Wikipedia editors to link to the IMDb entry of movies for which articles have been written (which is different from using it as a source). The reason is that, in a sense, IMDb is an alternative "Wikipedia of movies" considering that it gives curious Internet-surfers and movie aficionados a fair bit of information (which isn't necessarily official) regarding films, upcoming or otherwise. (The fact that IMDb is more or less a complete database of films, which makes it one of the leading and most popular movie sites in the net, is another reason that we link to a movie's IMDb entry.) S@lo 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware IMDb was editable. Thanks for clearing that up. --clpo13 04:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Just wanted to let you know that I added most of the Ratatouille cast. User:Pixar is 10:50, 11 April 2007

The cast has yet to be confirmed by 3rd parties on either of those websites. One site is a self-published fan site and therefore ineligible to be used as a WP reference (plus, WP:NOT a link exchange). And ComingSoon does not contain any of the cast information that was posted, nor do they publish their sources. SpikeJones 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

the latest added image by Pixar is

You said "don't remove it" in your comment. Why is the image there in the first place, as it doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic article? We already have images of all three characters depicted. Remember, WP:NOT a fan site. Can you defend needing the image in the article? If not, it will be removed as being unnecessary. SpikeJones 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay we can take off the image of Paris a put the new image there. User:Pixae is 11:48, 23 April 2007

Synopsis

204.128.192.8 just posted a synopsis of the movie taken directly from the official Ratatouille website. I reverted the edits for fear that the synopsis may be copyrighted. Even if it weren't copyrighted, I'd say it'd be more appropriate to put quotation marks around it and specifically state the source from which it came. Any thoughts on this matter? S@lo 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything on the internet is copyrighted automatically by the original author. The synopsis must be rewritten for an encyclopedia article. While we're on the topic, remember that we DO need to find a replacement for the JHM ref currently on the synopsis, as JHM is not a valid WP source. SpikeJones 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't even realize that we were using JHM as a source after all this time. I think the movie synopsis in the official Ratatouille website should replace the JHM reference. The synopsis written specifically for the article follows the official synopsis rather closely (albeit not a word-for-word transcription of it). By the way, thanks for clearing up the copyright issue. S@lo 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

• Anne Neumann (2007-04-25). "Ratatouille Edit Bay Visit!". Comingsoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Some interesting stuff on rendering food. Alientraveller 20:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Scott Collura & Eric Moro (2007-04-25). "Edit Bay Visit: Ratatouille". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

They even set up their own cafe. Alientraveller 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Bill Desowitz (2007-04-25). "Brad Bird Offers an Early Taste of Ratatouille". Animation World Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Alientraveller 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Drew McWeeny (2007-05-21). "Moriarty Visits Pixar To Chat With Brad Bird And Patton Oswalt About RATATOUILLE!". Ain't It Cool News. Retrieved 2007-05-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

Neat stuff on how Bird came on and Oswalt's casting. Alientraveller 13:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we add the rest of the cast?

Since this site (http://www.ratatouillemovie.net/) was right about Jake Steinfeld voiceing Git, should we add the rest of the cast that the site gives? User:Pixar is 08:25, 27 April 2007

ratatouillemovie.net is a self-published blog that does not provide their sources or other external confirmation on information. They -- and sites like it -- cannot be used as a WP resource at all. Please see WP's policy on citations and resources for full explanation as to why WP can't use any of their information. SpikeJones 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dissapeared writing

I added some info on the characters in my own words but it was taken off. It might have been taken off because I forgot to sign in but I saw the edited version as soon as I finished. Ideas? Can I try again? Arthritix 14:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some more info on the characters- not taken from other sites but I did use some ideas from trailers and podcasts. Arthritix 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. They were reverted because the edits you made contained plot elements and weren't limited to info on just the character themselves. When the movie comes out, you will see that the descriptions of some of the characters that may change dramatically from what's listed here if we were to include plot elements in the character descriptions. We're just trying to keep it simple for now. SpikeJones 16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. 64.222.60.237 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I get your point now that I saw the movie. 64.222.60.237 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Waiter

In the latest Ratatouille podcast entitled Parlez Vous Francais, John Ratzenberger is interviewed and while he speaks, under his name (where the name of his character is shown) it reads "Mustafa" which is presumably the name of the Waiter so I have changed it. Download it off of iTunes to see it. Martini833 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew this a long time ago, but people kept changing it back to "Waiter". (23:11, 19 May 2007) 71.114.227.28

A lot of us knew this a long time ago, but we have to wait for official announcements to reference, not random blog entries. While we appreciate enthusiasm in editing, all edits in Wikipedia -- especially edits regarding future items -- need to be properly documented and cited. WP:NOT a fan site, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. If you are unsure of how to document, edit, and cite properly, please review the Wikipedia style guide and how to cite sources. SpikeJones 11:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Movie plot

We need to be careful in the next coming weeks regarding posting the plot of the film. Reviews are starting to come in ("pixar's best work to date", is one that stuck out to me), and the full plot is available for those who know where to look. I propose waiting until the film is actually released before posting the full story as there are some plot points that are particularly spoiler-ific and could also slightly change the movie summary that's posted in the article. SpikeJones 12:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this consistent with the updated WP:SPOIL? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that policy. 24.61.47.65 11:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, as the policy states Concerns about spoilers should play no role in decisions about the structure or content of an article. The next thought regarding this is: when *should* the full plot for a future movie/book/etc be posted? Obviously, information shouldn't be added without proper citations ("someone on the set told me this was the plot" isn't valid), and advance press screenings are done with the caveat that the press attendees can't talk about the film ahead of specific dates (a projectionist in Memphis, for example, was fired last week for discussing Fantastic Four on Aint It Cool News). Some of us do have access to advance or inside information, but wait until a "proper" time to add that info to WP. Others may not have the same restraint, deciding to post information regardless of whether they have the correct info or citations available. Obviously, once tomorrow's sneak preview hits all bets are off, as that would be considered the final print of the film shown in an publicly-available setting. SpikeJones 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

However, the WP guidelines do say that the spoiler tag can be used temporarily for movies released in the past 6 months. This movie as of now is not even released in the US, and "Plot" isnt so much a few spoilers as a roadmap of every single surprise in the movie. I almost added the tag myself but decided with a bit of judgement to check the policy and the talk page. 70.246.193.20 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (correction 70.246.193.20 03:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Is this why we can't add character profiles to cast then? OK. Just remember, that's always the best way to keep the plot compact. Alientraveller 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Just giving a heads up, all those character images fail non-free image criteria. I.E. they need to be removed. If you can find 1 image, that encompasses the whole cast, or at least the primary cast, those usually tend to hold up better to scrutiny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What if I ask Disney / Pixar if they would be willing to give a free license to some images for Wikipedia to use? Anyone have any thoughts or experience with this? Wikidemo 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely not. See User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. At this point, one or two screengrabs might be all that can be done as noted above. --Masem 23:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read that several times. The policy is uncertain to begin with, and beyond that he is making up his own policies. If you get unrestricted permission from the copyright holder then it's a free image and outside the fair use policy. However, I don't really think a film article needs pictures of every character like rottentomatoes or imdb has.. If you want the full-on audiovisual experience you can go to the official website. The beauty of the Wikipedia version is that it's got all the links, and when you come here you know it's going to load fast, be readable and fair, and won't crash your browser. Wikidemo 00:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images_and_media item #3, as in the FAQ on the forelinked page, basically says that even if you get and say "used with permission" the image can be speedily deleted. However, as long as the appropriate fair-use rational is added, it should be ok. But, don't make the page a screenshot gallery of every single character. --Masem 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The policy suggestion is good and I'll save my thoughts on the policy for elsewhere. Wikidemo 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put up *one* image from the trailer, where Remy is controlling Linguini (a key plot element AND shows the two major characters) which was in the online trailer. Without other sources (eg the actual movie on DVD), eg a cast shot, I don't think there's much else that can be put up. And yes, it's got a fair use explanation. --Masem 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Remy vs Rémy

The official Disney site lists Remy as "Remy", not as "Rémy". Which is correct? SpikeJones 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Disney is using "Remy" consistently. Any objections to this change? SpikeJones 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Running Time

I'm pretty sure that the running time is 100 minutes (1 hour 40 minutes) but the page shows it as 110 minutes. Is it too hard to believe that a Pixar film can be less than 115 minutes? (Dorgana 12:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

The running time is 110min. As for your second sentence, quality vs quantity wins every time.

Actually, I saw the movie last night(June 16th) at a sneak preview and it WAS actually 115 min.

It's officially 116 minutes. I saw it on Saturday and I asked. 116. Really. I'm Kinda Awesome... 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox?

The right-hand side bar lists Michael J. Fox as the lead character. Doesn't that role belong to Patton Oswalt? Deadbeat 007 06:22, 18 June 2007

Indeed it does. Someone must have thought it would be clever to make that change. --clpo13 07:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot

What the hell happened to the plot section?

I think someone removed it since it was too long. I recommend that someone post the plot in a subpage and we'll work on cleaning it up. --^hello,gadren 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My current draft of the plot, which is unfinished and contains 676 words, can be found at Ratatouille (film)/Plot. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 16:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's finished now but is at 866 words, so 166 words have to be shaved out. - MajorB <talk> <contribs> - 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Completed! Down to 700 words exactly. Of course, any further edits are welcome. Thanks so much for writing the draft, MajorB! --^hello,gadren 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! There's no spoiler warning. I'll try to add one. Jrdaigle1000 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A section titled "plot" doesn't need a spoiler warning - this is an encyclopedia after all, so if someone comes here to read about the plot they had better expect to find it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

The film doesn't come out for another week. At least put a spoiler warning on the plot page. (Dorgana 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

It says "Plot". Readers aren't stupid. Alientraveller 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

People should know the difference between plot and plot summary. Plot is the basic background but not the whole story. Plot summary is the whole story. (Dorgana 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

*Sigh.* Please see the official policy. Thanks, and Happy Editing... Goldfritter 09:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-director Jan Pinkava?

I removed "Jan Pinkava(Credited as co-director)" from the info box because I could find no official source that listed him as "co-director" or "director". See, for example, IMDb or the film's official site. I saw the movie yesterday and do not remember seeing Pinkava in the screen credits either -- although I wasn't specifically looking for it. --Jeremy Butler 14:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Jan is listed in the closing credits specifically as co-director. SpikeJones 15:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got sharper eyes than me! Yes, Pinkava did get a co-director credit. It's interesting to see how the L.A. Times reported this:

"As has been widely reported, the Pixar-produced Ratatouille was begun by another director (Jan Pinkava, who receives a somewhat nebulous “co-director” credit in the film’s end titles) and then taken over by Bird well into the development process."[4]

--Jeremy Butler 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Production" section

"Production" section reads like a promo piece. It needs to be cleaned up and toned down. The insert with a quote by the producer alone is completely ridiculous. Alex Pankratov 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and don't want to mess with a quote. Alientraveller 20:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain how is the heavily POV'd quote "it's a wonderful story" from the most biased source is related to the "Production" section ? Alex Pankratov 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's how the production staff sees their work; it's a fair inclusion in the Production section as it explains how and why this story even got made. It's not a WP editor POV that's being introduced here. --Masem 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same quote ? It is a wonderful story about following your passions when all the world is against you. A rat to a kitchen is death; a kitchen to a rat is death by the movie producer is NOT "how the production staff sees their work". Moreover this quote is completely out of place in the context of the production of the movie. Furthermore, the inset focusing on a certain fact is a very uncommon formatting element in WP articles. Having an inset that actually features POV'd quote is a plain violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Alex Pankratov 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First, calling it out as an inset is probably biasing the quote, so that should be nixed. On the quote itself, if the quote was from Lassetar specifically about why Pixar was eager to pick up this script, and thus influencing Pixar's decision to make this film, it would be appropriate to keep in the article as a direct quote cited to Lassetar; if it was a post-production type hype, it should be deleted However I checked the referenced source, and that quote, as is, does not appear like that; it's been bastardized from the source. I would say checking closer that it should be nixed, unless someone can find something equivalent about why Pixar was eager to do the film. --Masem 22:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Alex Pankratov 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

pronounciation in header

Resolved

I noted that someone added the correct pronunciation of "ratatouille" the dish (emphasis on -tou-) to the header, which, given its non-english heritage, is appropriate. However, based on what is later in the article, is not this film pronounced differently on purpose (emphasis on "ra-"), and thus, should we not use that in the header (still noting that there is this expected difference later?) --Masem 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The pronounciation is the same. It's the marketing use of spelling the pronounciation as "rat-a-too-ee" instead of using the traditional standard prounciation format that is being pointed out. There really is no need for the official pronounciation syntax to be added to the opening paragraph, but if it needs to be added to the paragraph about marketing (along the lines of "... instead of the traditional [insert here]..." then I could see that. SpikeJones 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The creators are not saying this film has a name pronounced differently than the dish, they just sometimes include a phonetic spelling as a marketing device. It's cute, but adopting that marketing device means we're reprinting a marketing statement as fact instead of using the standard way of describing things, which is unencyclopedic.Wikidemo 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just checking (I've actually never heard the name of the movie stated, only read up on it, so I wanted to make sure )--Masem 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Brother...

Resolved

There has been reasonable dispute on whether Emile is older or younger than Remy. Anyone who's seen the movie perhaps heard Emile calling Remy "little brother". There is a book based on the film called "Oh, Brother!", told from Emile's point of view. Remy is said being his "little older brother". With too many sources and different claims, let's please leave it as "Emile, Remy's brother", and skipping the age detail. Rusty5 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remy is the more mature of the two, but not clearly older; calling him "little" could refer to his size. I hope people don't go down the path of a star wars like dissection of the film, book, director's statements, etc., to decide which sources are truly cannonical

they are both young,but the mouse is more serious

I have not seen the flim, but I have played to game and emile is is OLDER brother. thanku —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.254.61 (talk) 07:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Walt Disney Pictures (2007-07-06). "Did You Find the Easter Eggs in Ratatouille?". Comingsoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A reliable source, so editors can avoid original research. Alientraveller 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Film triggers rat craze in France". BBC News. 2007-10-04. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Alientraveller 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Rob Carnevale (2007-10-04). "Behind The Scenes on Ratatouille". BBC. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Alientraveller 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• "French Rat Reigns in Germany". Internet Movie Database. 2007-10-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Alientraveller 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ratatouille sparks pet rat craze Alientraveller 20:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Skinner

Anyone notice the chef named Skinner? He was probably named after the psychologist B.F. Skinner, who is famous for doing conditioning experiments with rats.

Setting?

It's clear that Ratatouille takes place in Paris, but when? When I saw the movie in theaters, I originally thought it took place several decades ago (seemingly revealed by the abundance of noticeably older-model vehicles, phones, etc, the lack of references to high-technology, and the lack of women in the workplace, among other clues). But then I realized that Linguini was wearing high-tops, and later Skinner's lawyer uses DNA testing to verify Linguini's identity. DNA fingerprinting technology has only been in use since the mid-80s, and (although I'm not sure of exactly when high-tops were first sold), the times that they were popular are not consistent with the perceived age of the aforementioned props.

Can someone clarify this, or should the article mention that this movie contains props inaccurate to the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmello (talk • contribs)

It says it's intended to be a romantic vision of Paris. In any case it's timeless fiction. Alientraveller 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It looks kinda like a 1950s version of Paris, but, for one thing, Collettes motorcycle is much more modern than any of the cars. Like the Incredibles, I guess, they like to hint at a time period, but in reality its a fantasy world.--Dudeman5685 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing Disney is good at, it's creating films that last for decades because they aren't tied to any time period. Pixar, too. I think they do this on purpose so that they can re-release periodically and have lots of revenues for a long time. No doubt they avoid any current slang or jargon, technology that will ever become obsolete, etc. 1950s Paris is one of those eternal images. The old woman's TV is 70s or 80s vintage, I think -- definitely not HDTV...remember how you could see the pixels? You could possibly date the kitchen's tools, gadgetry, dishes, and cooking methods as 1990s to present, though. Presumably they decided that DNA testing and high tops are here to stay. This would be an interesting addition to the article if you can find an external source about it, rather than a list of trivia items or original research or speculation Wikidemo 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like high-tops date back to 1917 (see Chuck Taylor All-Stars), but that's beside the point, as I agree they were going for a timeless look. -- Logotu 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To all the enthusiastic editors

Hi. So many people are contributing to this article, and I think it is one of the better articles on Wikipedia for a newly released film. We just got a "B" rating, which is very good for a new Wikipedia article. Thanks for all your contributions. When I read some of these edits, it is clear that many of the editors are children and young adults, film buffs, Disney lovers, or just people who want to express their admiration for such a wonderful film. Sometimes these edits are very helpful, but sometimes they are outside the normal rules and style guidelines for Wikipedia. Please don't take it personally if you add something that later gets removed or modified. I have added as much as anyone here, and most of my stuff gets removed too. Think of it as a group project where we all add our little piece. And if you're one of the serious editors who wants to keep the article in top shape, please realize there are some enthusiastic new Wikipedia editors here so let's be kind and encourage them to learn.

Just so you know, a few things keep popping up that we have to keep removing. These include:

• Unsourced materials - things you learned by watching the movie or reading about it, but don't link to an article from a neutral source like a newspaper. If you can't back it up, we can't print it here.
• Trivia, either in a trivia section or in the main article. There is lots of good trivia about this movie, so much that if we include it all it will get very long and the basic facts of the movie will get overwhelmed. Unlike IMDB and some other movie sites, Wikipedia does not encourage trivia sections.
• Links to your favorite blog, reviewer, or film website. When you promote your own it's considered "spam" linking. Even if it's not yours, here are too many of these to include them all, so we stick to some very basic external links -- trailers, news articles, and the major film sites like IMDB, Rottentomatoes, and Metacritic.
• Plot details that get too long or aren't really important to tell the story. This film has a very complicated plot, and much of it is just for fun and doesn't need to be told here. We're trying to keep it to 700 words, so if you go into too much detail someone else will probably simplify it.
• Point of view and opinion. Yes, Skinner is a bad guy, and the food looks delicious! But we have to use serious, objective language because this is an encyclopedia. For a similar reason we can't talk about which movie is the best, or how much money it's going to make. We stick to the facts that we can find in an external source.
• Plagiarism. Don't copy whole sentences from other websites, please!
• Kidding around. Yes, it is fun to say "woo woo woo" on the page. But it really doesn't belong and we have to remove it. Wikidemo 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)get

Reviews

We can't include every review or blog. To be fair it would be all of the reviews (200+) or nothing. Usually we don't add specific reviews to films, not even Roger Ebert or the New York Times, unless there is a special reason. If a review says something particularly useful to add to the text of the article, it's fine to say that and use the review as a reference. If the review is just another source on the film, it's best not to add it. Here are some great reviews that just don't seem to have a grounding in the text of the article. Wikidemo 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ratatouille Review at Fashionably Cute with screenshots

Audience Reaction In France

I am curious to know what the French reaction to the film has been, both regular moviegoers and also crtitics. I personally loved the film-- and suspect it will be received well there, but the French sentiment often being different than the American, I was just curious to know.

71.208.230.141 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The movie has been released on august 1 and, well, it seems that the film has been received very well here. Not only by moviegoers, but also by critics. Given the movie is in Paris, I wonder if it's possible to put the french release date in the infobox, even if France is not an English-speaking country, as well as Russia, am I wrong? ^^ 83.199.148.61 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps the French audience and critical reaction would be an interesting subject for the English Wikipedia, particularly if there is a good solid source who describes it intelligently. Given all of the political and cultural rivalry displayed towards France by the United States, perhaps two-sided, it is notable that this is one of the first mass-market popular films in a long time that takes an unabashedly positive, even admiring, look at French culture. It could be a positive influence, or perhaps a sign of improving relations.Wikidemo 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• The last part of Liberation's review criticizes the American point of view of Paris. Pointing out the anachronism between the large presence of Citroën DS (quite rare nowadays) and cell phones. Besides that, Ratatouille is very well rated: 10 papers rated five stars (out of five) and nine rated four stars (none rated below 4 stars), the film is a box-office success with nearly 2 millions spectators on the first week (comparatively "The Simpsons Movie" made 2M spectators in two weeks) . IMHO: as far as the film is for entertainment most french people aren't looking for perfect accuracy in the behavior of the characters or the life in Paris. That could have been *very* different if the film was insisting on stereotypical dishes such as frogs or snails :) --Nicolas.cuissard 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article

This could easily become a good article. It has many references, but it needs a few more pictures n' stuff. And maybe a brief bit more or characters? Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as the reception section is so small. Alientraveller 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least wait until the DVD is released so that any additional development details and a few better shots can be used (beyond those that exist already). We should plan to maintain the article as it is right now, of course, and maybe find a few more critical comments (pro and negative). --Masem 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

New plot additions are not good

Okay, one anonymous user (User:71.98.93.103) has added a bunch of extra plot details and removed a bunch of wikinks three times and been reverted three times by two editors (including my latest). The only other edit history from this IP address shows recent minor edits to four other film articles and a clumsy POV edit to a gun-related article here that may not be the same user because it was a long while ago.

We generally encourage constructive edits and collaboration, but everyone has to realize their edits don't always stick because this article is a collaborative process and people might disagree. If someone rejects your edits without an explanation maybe it's okay to restore them. But if people give a good explanation why they reject your edits, you should talk about them rather than being stubborn. When we removed the edits we did give an explanation that it's improper to remove other people's wikilinks and the extra plot details just made the plot longer without adding anything. That wasn't enough for the editor, so I'll give a blow-by-blow.

1. Inspired by France's recently deceased top Chef, Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett), Rémy tries to live the life of a gourmet with his keen sense of smell. -> Rémy is trying to live a life, not live a life with a sense of smell. One does not live with a sense of smell. One lives alone or with others. To say that one lives with a sense of smell makes no logical sense. Moreover, even if you could phrase this properly, the fact that he has a keen sense of smell is not the reason he is trying to live the life of a gourmet. The added phrase has nothing to do with the sentence. It is out of place.
2. storm drains, cookbook, skylight, janitorial, soup, (remove wikilinks)->They are perfectly good wikilinks
3. While cleaning, Linguini accidentally spills a pot of soup and attempts to cover up his mistake by adding random ingredients. -> It makes no difference to the plot that he spills the soup while cleaning. Of course his spilling of the soup is accidental. Who spills soup on purpose? Adding that word adds nothing to the sentence.
4. Upset,Horrified by Linguini's actions, Rémy falls into the kitchen and though desperately trying to escape cannot help but try attempts to fix the ruined soup rather than trying to escape. -> Upset and horrified are similar words; however horrified implies a judgment as to internal mental state, which is unencyclopedic. "..by Linguini's actions" is unnecessary verbiage. The word "upset" comes immediately after a statement that Linguini ruined the soup. It's obvious that's what this sentence refers to. "though desperalely trying to escape" is not an opposite to fixing the soup. You only use thou x, y in a case where x and y are in opposition here, which they aren't. He is not desperately trying to escape while he is fixing the soup. He is not trying to escape at all. He is staying and fixing the soup. There is no backup for a claim that Remi cannot help himself. Who knows if he could have helped himself or not. The figure of speech here is unencylcopedic. He simply feels an urge to fix the soup. The original version simply laid out what happened, he fell through the skylight and fixed the soup rather than trying to escape. The new version uses flowery speech that assigns mental states to a character.
5. Linguini catches Rémy in the act, just as Skinner catches Linguini. In the confusion, however, some of the soup has beenis taken and served. -> "however" implies an opposition between two statements. But there is no direct conflict between catching in the act and serving soup. Better to simply say it with no unnecessary conjunctions. Taking and serving are two different acts, but the taking of the soup is not the problem, it is that the soup has been served to a customer. No point adding a superfluous verb.
6. wine, kiss, investigation, dating, TV dinner, scrounging, apologize (removed wikilinks) -> nothing wrong with these wikilinks
7. scrounging for food -> the connector is not required
8. Linguini walks in the midst of the raidinto the storage room to apologize to Rémy, only to discover the raid and kicks out all the rats -> the old sentence had problems, which I fixed. However, the fact that it was in the storage room is irrelevant to the plot.
9. jaded, cooking, courage, roller skates (removed wikilink) -> perfectly good wikilinks
10. Colette helps RémyWhen asked what he would like that evening, Ego challenges the chefs to prepare whatever they want. Rémy chooses to prepare ratatouille. -> That Ego was asked what he wants, that he challenged the chefs, or that they prepared what they wanted, or that it was Remy's choice are peripheral plot details
11. and while Colette is initially skeptical, decides to help him anyway.->Collete's cooking despite skepticism is irrelevant to plot.
12. childhood memories of his mother serving him ratatouille as comfort food. -> that his mother served him ratatouille is not relevant, but it's implied anyway. Saying that he was served something as comfort food is incorrect. He is not comfort food. The serving was not as comfort food. Whether the ratatouille is or is not comfort food is not clearly derived from the plot, and in any event the detail is superfluous.
13. health inspector, investor, patron (removed wikilinks) -> perfectly fine wikilinks

Okay? Wikilinks are optional, but without a reason it's pushy to remove links added by another person. The additions didn't improve the plot. They involved some extraneous details, things that did not logically fit or were out of place, and the English usage is not up to the level of the rest of the article. We're trying to keep the article to 700 words. The old version was 736 and the one the user keeps restoring is 780. All in all, it makes the article worse. That's why we're reverting. To keep adding the material despite opposition just looks like over-aggressive editing.

-- Wikidemo 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Contentious editing by anonymous editor

An anonymous editor who appears to have a dynamic IP address has added these exact same edits five times now without once discussing them. If this happens again I will ask that the page be semi-protected, meaning unavailable for editing by new or anonymous users. I see no other way to stop this nonsense. Wikidemo 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is in the block 71.98.*.*, but that's a huge block that WP editors will likely not do much to block (I'm sure it's not the entire 71.98.* block, but enough of it to be too large). Semiprot makes reasonable sense. --Masem 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The editor has added the same destructive edits again, now for a sixth time, without any edit summaries, talk, or response. This was generating a content fork as people started editing the degraded version. Afraid we have to semi-protect page to avoid this. Wikidemo 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you sent that user a 3RR notice, and asked for that user to be temporarily blocked? SpikeJones 12:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR is for reverts within a 24 hour period, and neither warning nor blocking is practical to do to anonymous user with a dynamic IP address but yes, two IP addresses have been warned and it's clear that he/she got at least one of the warnings because the latest edit came from one of the two IP addresses that was earlier warned.Wikidemo 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Render resolution?

Does anyone know of Pixar renders their movies at 2K or 4K resolution? --24.249.108.133 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

they can render it at any resolution, modern digital animation releases are 2K because there ::is no advantage going 4K with fairly simple color range vs photo realism movie fx.

"32mm film is overall 5000x5000:25mpix"

  5776 x 4336 (25.04) - aspect 4:3 (1.33 - normal)
  6032 x 4144 (25.00) - aspect 16:11 (1.45 - widescreen)
  6328 x 3952 (25.01) - aspect 16:10 (1.60 - widescreen)
  6664 x 3752 (25.00) - aspect 16:9 (1.78 - widescreen)

with animation you don't have to render 25mpix to get good quality on 32mm, which was shown with toy story 1 which was almost half 2K Markthemac 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First name, please! Why is everyone calling Alfredo by his last name, Linguini? I believe it is quite silly to refer to him this way. Can we change it to Alfredo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.139 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mobile Game

I put in all this information as i believe it is relevant to the article:

i feel it is justified - if you feel it is too commercial, i have removed the shortcode, but i would appreciate it if you would not revert my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.gwyn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the discussion of the game relevant, entertaining, and useful in providing context - just written like fluff. The version Alientraveller first deleted is the best, not the version Pixelface has been trying to add back in. Pixelface's version is better written of course, but I think it misses the gist of the earlier mention, which gives context to the marketing efforts and the overall reception of the film. The problem is that the tone is not right and it's too long in proportion to the article. It probably deserves 1-2 sentences top, not its own section. Any more detail than that should go in its own article on the game, if that's notable enough to include in Wikipedia. It should be integrated into another section. This is just a matter of balance and proportion. I would go with something like this:

"To coincide with Pixar's theatrical release, THQ Wireless released a mobile game in which users play the part of Linguini who, with Remy's help, must please patrons by preparing gourmet dishes from various cooking stations on his way to becoming head chef.".

-- Wikidemo 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Friend the Rat

Why does Your Friend the Rat redirect here? It's a separate short film, can somebody fix this? Martini833 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an expression, fix it yourself! The old article was blanked and replaced with a redirect because it had almost no content, and is merely a featurette / short film that goes along with this film on the upcoming DVD. You can see a little discussion in the history / talk page. There's no exact rule, it was just done as a matter of editorial discretion. If you want to fix it, you add a sentence here if people think it fits under a section like "DVD" release. Or else, if you think it can stand on its own as an article, reverse the edit by which the redirect was creaqted, and add your own content to the article so it's worth reading. Be sure to review the notability guidline WP:N as it applies to films, probably a separate page. See if it's even capable of being notable given what it is, and if it is capable, make sure you add enough content and a reference or two so that the article shows that it's notable. Wikidemo 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will but that was very rude!Martini833 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying *I* was being rude, or the deltion? I spent the time to research the matter, answer your question in detail, and offer words of enouragement on what to do? I did'nt have to answer the question, you know. Wikidemo 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Home Video Section

I changed "DVD" section name to "Home VIdeo Release" again since it's available in Blu-Ray format too. It should not be changed again, Blu-Ray is not the same format as DVD, Blu-Ray is a HD format. Both are home video formats. --T0rek 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the article

Well dispite wikipedia's motto "Anyone can edit", it seems that as soon as you try to add some information to this specific article, it gets removed, did someone say power abuse? 87.102.40.189 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, but not every edit is a good one. You have to get used to the fact that it's a group project, and anything you add might get accepted by people and might not. You're also up against some style guidelines Wikipedia has for film articles and other articles in general. This edit you tried to make adds information that the plot does not really need. Everyone wants to add something to the plot section but it's already as long as it can get, probably longer than it should be. The plot is told in chronological order, and starts out saying that Remy is living in the colony with his family. If you put a parenthetical right there at the beginning that Linguini calls him Little Chef, it sticks out. Linguini hasn't been introduced at this point. Nobody is calling him Little Chef. That doesn't happen except in the middle part of the film, and it's just not as important as other things. The plot discussion gives the big events people need to understand what the film is about. The "Little Chef" name is cute and it shows affection (and also a little bit of lack of understanding), but it's not necessary for the plot. If you make a change that people agree with, they will leave it alone. I hope that helps. Wikidemo 11:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rémy & Rémy

Is there a connection between Rémy of this movie, and Pascal Rémy, who wrote a criticism of the Michelin Guides? It just seems too close to be a coincidence. 72.131.11.47 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your original research needs to be cited with a reliable source then. Alientraveller 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Alfredo Linguini

For the last time, ALFREDO IS HIS FIRST NAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.139 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When watching a film I must say that I cannot remember every characters full name so therefore I do not expect anyone else to. Please back up everything you say no matter how much you know that you are correct there is a possibility you are not... The joys of an encyclopedia. Rick-Levitt ^{Talk Contribs} 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "official" site says his name is Alfredo.Goodone121 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How Many...

How many stars did this film get? I was always wondering this.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From where do you mean? RT overall ranks as 95% positive among critics. Alientraveller 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I mean as the overall rating. The one where the rating is out of five stars. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-english

The reversion of this edit [5] with the summary non-english release dates (save for france due to film) not needed needs to be discussed further. I have few questions:

1. Why is assumed that the film was not an English-language feature film in India?
2. Why are western countries only featured? WP:CSB

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We are using the guideline from the Films project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Release_dates. This is not meant to be a systematic bias as it is meant to keep the infobox size in check. As this is the English WP, the project guidelines suggest only countries where English is the primary language should be stated; the exception for Ratatouille is that the film came out first in France. --MASEM 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced with the second point in Wikiproject films. I agree that the infobox needs to be kept compact, but including unecessary countries just because English is the only language spoken does raise questions. I'll raise it on the wikiproject =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

UK DVD

This was a great film. Does anyone know the release date of the DVD in the UK. The article only relates to the USA release which does not meet the standards of WP:FILM. Unisouth 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blu-Ray Disc and DVD Release

The info on easter eggs here is terrible and porbably should be deleted. Just letting the right people know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.146.106 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

An idea for a section (needs to be edited to a neutral POV)

==Rating== This film was rated G by [[MPAA]]. But from a certain point of view, this rating can be questioned. When Remy and Emile are seen by the old lady, she tries to shoot them with a shotgun. When Remy is crawling through the wall, he sees a young lady trying to shoot a man with a pistol. This film also has numerous references to wine, and there is even a scene where Skinner intentionally gives Linguini so many glasses of wine that he gets drunk.

--75.85.111.141 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That won't fly even if written well - it's strongly original research. If there are cases where reliable sources questioned the G rating due to these elements, we can use the source and add, but without it, it's not appropriate. --MASEM 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

Okay, this article has a lot of good things going for it, but there are too many fixes needed to pass it at this stage.

• Big point first: For a film that was (apparently) so critically acclaimed, where are the reviews? The RT and Metacritic ratings are fine to include, but you need to show positive and negative critical reviews as well.
• The lead, per WP:LEAD, is to short. Try expanding it with mentions of the production and marketing.
• The plot looks a tad long, but I don't know what could be trimmed, so this isn't a big issue.
• Why are the cast members listed next to the characters in the plot? That's fine sometimes, but the article has a cast and characters section, so you don't need the cast to be mentioned in the plot as well.
• Do we know why Pinkava was replaced with Bird?
• Production could ideally be expanded, but it’s a great section for now so this isn't much of a problem.
• The paragraph about the first trailer is unsourced, and per the WP:FILMS guidelines, trailers aren’t notable for inclusion anyway. Although it should be okay for now, and the UK trailer stuff is pretty notable I suppose.
• The box office section should be expanded if possible.
• There isn't much information in the Reception section, so (even if it is expanded) I'd remove the sub-sections and merge them into one "Reaction” or “Reception" section.
• And merge awards into said section...
• The article needs a good copy-editing (but what article doesn't).
• Particularly in the awards section, some references are in the wrong place. Each time ref 46 has been added with a space after the full stop when it should just be directly after it. Same for ref 42 and ref 41 needs to be after the comma.
• Refs 31 and 32 need to be properly formatted. Ref 38 has no publisher listed.

As such, I do not think I can pass the article now, but keep up the good work, and you can always re-nominate it, at some future point. Gran² 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

critical reception

Hi - I was coming here from the GA page too and had similar comments regarding the critical reception section. It's incredibly cursory, given that this is what will ultimately drive any long-term notability of the work. Suggest including notes from major sources on the animation etc.; e.g., salon 6/29 on the animation; SJ Mercury on sexism (this issue was written about in a number of sources); NYT is usually a major film review & IIRC there was a good review of "R" in the NYT; any academic discussions would be helpful, although it might be a bit early to get those. --Lquilter (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rémy's Reunion

I just added this paragraph in the plot section.

One night, Rémy and his colony are reunited. At the ensuing party, he surprises his father by saying that he was not going to stay with the colony, but instead continue to live near the humans. In response, Django shows Rémy the storefront of a rodent control business, which is filled with dead rats in traps. Rémy, horrified, does not believe that this is all the future can be, and leaves.

I am aware that this addition makes the plot section longer, and brings the word count to an undesired 946, but that part is very important to the plot, because it is a turning point in the movie. ~The Little Green Man from Mars^{(My Page)}_{(Where do I live?)} 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)