Talk:The Cat in the Hat (film)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media articles

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.

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

Anti-Semetic???

How could this have been anti-semetic? There's no explanation. --Jnelson09 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is bad as hell.

I agree, and very one-sided as well Naysie 08:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys too-terrible article. How the hell is a woman in her underwear a mature theme btw? For crying out loud-there's tons of male content like that in Y7 cartoons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.192.111 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

the last line of the opening paragraph refers to ebert and roeper's critique of the film. why is this not included under reactions? Citizenjamesford (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameos

excluding paris hilton, none of these should qualify as cameos. cameos are short or unexpected performances by established performers or relevant people at the time of the production. if someone becomes famous years later you can't retroactively make that a cameo (richard dreyfus in THE GRADUATE, alfred molina in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, samuel l jackson in EXORCIST III). those are just starting actors in small parts before they were famous. if they were given bigger parts, they would have taken them. cameos are bruce willis in OCEANS TWELVE, sean connery in ROBIN HOOD PRINCE OF THIEVES or ted danson in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

i looked up all of these people on IMDB exlcuding hilton and the voice-over actor, none of these had done anything noteworthy at the time the film was made. Citizenjamesford (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

"The film opens in a little town where two children, Breslin and Fanning."

That is all it says. There's no way that's the whole movie. Could someone please fix this? I would, except I haven't seen the it. 24.223.154.154 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Adaption

the article only talks about the voice actors but not the video game was there really a game based on the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgeggrg (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no source so I removed it. 74.230.35.77 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was a "Cat in the Hat" Playstation 2 video game based off the movie. I know because I found it at gamefaqs.com so there was really a video game adaption. CrosswalkX (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myers performance

why did Myers performance get removed of the reasons why the movie got negative reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.138.159 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's <redacted> locked this?

Your missing the video game info, and two mature themes in the film which were deleted scenes in the DVD involving The Cat and the Hat saying, "Wow, that tiring, time to hit the showers," then he licks his genitals and another deleted scene where there is gay guy who sells tv's in Whoville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.177.58 (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mature Themes

Why was the section containing the inappropriate themes in this horrid movie deleted?--Austin Robinson 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)User:Robinsonbecky

Swear Word to Change

Uh, I see on the "Reception" section it saids "The Cat in the Hat received pooTY reviews". Uh... whoever edited into that, please change the S word back to "Negative". (TheLoverofLove (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Cult following?

This addition: "Despite of the negative reviews, this film has become a cult following." (Edit summary: "i ve seen many positive comments about this enjoyable film, for example, in youtube has higher "likes", so to date, this film is a cult following, is just a simple information what i put.")[1] is unsourced.

Various "likes" and positive comments do not demonstrate that the film has a cult following. Rather, this shows that someone, somewhere likes the movie. This is true of all but the worst movies.

Evidence of a cult following would be reliable sources saying it had developed a cult following. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Said user doesn't seem like he/she is listening. What should we do if this continues? Freshh! (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the changing IP address, the next option is temporary semi-protection of the article. While 4 times in 5 days is annoying, I'm not sure protection would fly just yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Release?

The wiki and the world really claim this film to have been released in late 2003. Does that mean the cinemas only or the store as well? I don't remember seeing this film in the film store until at some point in 2004.

So was this film released in cinemas in 2003 and released in store in 2004? Or was it released in 2003 on all counts? As far as I'm concerned, it didn't make it to the store until 2004. But that's okay. The neutral point of view appears to credit the time of which a film is released in cinema and I have no problem or objection as to how the neutral point of view currently stands. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film's theatrical release was in November 2003. Without checking, it's a fairly safe bet the home video release was some time in 2004. (Similarly, The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939, not some time in the 1980s when home video first came about.) - SummerPhD (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. I was almost certain that it wasn't released on home video until 2004. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Corrected formatting/usage for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/extras/lostmind/year/2003/2003st.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

== semi protection ==

This movie should not be protected because it’s not a popular movie— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:b149:764a:edbf:5b00:8802:3ef7 (talk • contribs) 23:57, March 7, 2020 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected due to disruptive editing by unregistered editors. If you have constructive changes, you can suggest them here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...

You might want to take a look through the DVD extras, they have some neat stuff that might not be mentioned in the Production section of the article. Dvdmovies123 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just add it. Be bold! Go for it, add it yourself. Please make sure to specify the exact name of the DVD featurette and any relevant timestamps. To make it possible for other editors to WP:VERIFY please also try to make sure to include exact details of which version of the DVD (or Bluray) such as including ISBN. -- 109.79.172.92 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worst film

You can hate this film as much as you want and I don't think anyone would say it is anything other than a bad film but this film is not included on the List of films considered the worst and editors must stop linking to that article like as if this film was actually on it. As bad as this film may be there are so many worse films, that have more consistently been called out by critics.

Some of the more recent edits made belatedly efforts to include references to support their claims about how terrible this film is

[2] A review roundup by The Guardian says how very terrible the film is, but nonetheless still does not say that it falls to the nadir of worst ever
- the WSJ comes close with "one of the most repulsive kiddie movies ever"
- Newsday comes close with "worst holiday movie ever made"
- and the Village Voice says it "comes scarily close to being the most unendurable Hollywood creation of the last dozen years"
[3] The Torch Web does call it "worst movies ever produced" but this is not a mainstream critic, or a reliable source it is a student newspaper
[4] WP:BUZZFEED is known for their hyperbole and their wild inconsistency. It isn't a reliable source and it doesn't say the film was the worst ever, the listicle merely points out the various ways in which it was terrible.

While that goes a long way to highlight the inexorable awfulness of the film it is not enough to make it "the worst". Please stop trying to crowbar links to the List of films considered the worst into this article already. -- 109.79.79.137 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that this was not the work of a serious editor making changes in good faith but one disruptive editor (Special:Contributions/96.3.164.224) spamming the same link across many articles.[5] Frequently including references that did not support the claims, and sometimes even contradicted them.

Please do read the List of films considered the worst and also the Talk page discussions that go further to explain the requirements to end up on that list. They aren't just bad films, they aren't even the worst films in that year or worst films in their genre, they are films that have been repeatedly called the worst ever by reliable sources. -- 109.78.210.152 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal is still at it.[6] -- 109.76.139.210 (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You're not just wrong, you're stupid." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You're not just wrong, you're stupid. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 3 § You're not just wrong, you're stupid. until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my Boldness, Reverted--let's Discuss

@Geraldo Perez: Thank you for striving to improve Wikipedia. Did you read my edit summary? You restored three things i find problematic:

the second ... adaptation after How the Grinch Stole Christmas is ambiguous. For comparison, consider the Star Wars films:
- The Empire Strikes Back was the second Star Wars film, after A New Hope.
- The Empire Strikes Back was the first Star Wars film after A New Hope; Return of the Jedi was the second Star Wars film after A New Hope.
- The Empire Strikes Back was the second Star Wars film after A New Hope; The Star Wars Holiday Special was the first Star Wars film after A New Hope.
- This article could be clearer about how many live-action Dr. Seuss adaptations got made.
When you say the second and final live-action feature-length Dr. Seuss adaptation, are you ignoring or overlooking Seussical? The play is definitely live-action and i suspect it's feature-length, even though it's not a feature film. That's why i changed feature-length to feature film (and tweaked some of the surrounding phrasing).
The film stars Mike Myers obviously intends for The film to mean The Cat in the Hat, but the article just mentioned How the Grinch Stole Christmas, so technically the grammatical meaning is that How the Grinch Stole Christmas stars Mike Myers. Ain't nobody never had no trouble understanding no double negatives, but that doesn't mean improper grammar is suitably encyclopedic for Wikipedia.

In my edit i tried to clarify these bits, but if you don't think i produced a good version _{(quiet sobbing)} let's discuss how else we might rephrase things.

Wishing you safe, happy, productive editing.

--173.67.42.107 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at all the edits after the point I reverted to and considered the article, as a whole, better at that point. I wasn't looking at only your edits but your edits modified the others so you were building on a poor foundation, so to speak. I generally don't have an issue with what you, personally, were doing, I just couldn't unwind it from the other edits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The story.

Please stop with this, pal. 1. The title is Dr. Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat, not just The Cat in the Hat! 2. The Dreamworks Boy is wearing the Cat’s Hat. 3. I don’t know.

Put your review here. Seussfanlover (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary title is what this article uses as a title, the alt title is mentioned in the intro. The plot section contains only the plot of the film, nothing else. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]