Talk:The Fox and the Hound/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Happy Endings?

Removed comment about it not having a Happy Ending in the article. The sentence seems to be arguing with itself, and I think whether or not you think it has a happy ending, that discussion doesn't belong in the Critical Reaction section. Left in the trivia for now, but I'd vote on removing it from there as well. Egret 04:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue, that whether this movie has a happy ending or not depends on how you interprid the outcome. If you think of Widow Tweed as Tod's mother and that he's been kicked out from home and doesen't come back to live at the farm, I guess you could call it a sad ending. At the begining Tod's mother is killed, Widow Tweed is just that; a widow, Amos Slade is an angry old man and Chief, influenced my his master, a bitter and aggressive dog. At the end Chief has grown fond of Copper's company, Slade has been softened up and seems to have mooved into Tweed's house and Tod and Vixey enjoys an overview of the farm in the blissfull company of each other.(Thanks)130.225.243.94 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, Tod lost his mother, his stepmother, his home AND his best friend (note that they don't hang around together, they're simply no longer enemies) He sits there on the rock with a look that suggests he's thinking "it was so nice out here when i was young, now things have changed,I'm no longer welcome" For me, it's neither sad nor happy ending, it's a 'good' one, if you know what I mean.A balanced one.Not yet another of those "happily ever afters".And that's what makes this movie special.62.21.29.73 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I think we should merge The Fox and the Hound and The Fox and the Hound (film) togeter. What do you guys think?70.146.241.244 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The novel and the film are vastly different. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I know,but the book is a stub and the film could be longer.I created the pages for simple:The Fox and the Hound,simple:The Fox and the Hound (film) and decided to merge them today,so they are now merged.70.146.241.244 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything. They are distinct works with their own notability. Your deciding to merge them on the Simple Wikipedia, presumably without bothering to discuss or get consensus, does not mean it should or will be repeated here. Both articles need work, that doesn't mean you ruin them by merging to extremely different works with on another.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I went though the plot summary and removed statements that are open to interpretation (the widow being Tod's mother figure, etc.) I think that section is now free of original research and we can remove the tag. Most of the reactions in there are clearly seen in the film (Copper is clearly speechless when he meets Tod at the end, he starts to speak and then goes silent. Tod is clearly immature as an adult, as he behaves as if he and Copper were still puppies upon his return.) If there are any further statements that anyone thinks remain subjective, let me know here and we'll discuss whether they are objectively present in the film. If no one has any objections, I'll go ahead and remove the tag. I also tried getting rid of superficial information like the comic relief characters and the details of Tod and Vixey's meeting. I think we can also remove the tag about the plot summary being too long since it seems about average to me now. Ash Loomis (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it still has a lot. Declaring Tod is still "immature" because he believes in his friendship with Copper is making a personal interpretation. The plot summary should be just that: a short, succinct summary of the major plot points of the film, including ending, without interpretation or personal opinion. Some quick examples:

• A kindly owl named Big Mama arranges him to be adopted by the compassionate farmer, Widow Tweed - bolded words are interpretative and never stated; nor is it ever said that she is a farmer.
• The fox is reluctant to accept her at first, but the two begin to bond. - totally interpretative of his initial struggles over her picking him up; "bonding" shown by plot, not interpretative telling.

• Meanwhile, Tweed's neighbor, an ill-tempered hunter named Amos Slade... - interpative to call him ill-tempered when it isn't stated until much later in the film
• Slade introduces Copper to his hunting dog Chief, who feels uncomfortable about having a new dog around. - says who? No one states it. Chief doesn't like the puppy, but its never said if its because of a new dog or if its just because its a puppy.

Those are just a few examples from the first paragraph. The plot summary is also still too long, so both tags stay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a little bit rigid. Anyone who watches the movie can tell these things about the characters just by their actions. Tweed lives alone on a farm, and we see her farming. Obviously this means she is a farmer of some kind, she doesn't have to say "I am a farmer." By this logic we'd have to say Tod's mother wasn't actually his mother just because she never said she was before getting shot. We can see quite clearly that Tod is resistant to Tweed at first, but soon becomes close to her. One minute he's scared of her, later on he's a tame pet. This isn't interpreting that material in some personal way, this is watching the movie and understanding what's going on. Chief's reaction and attitude towards Copper clearly shows that he's uncomfortable with him for some reason. Maybe if we wrote that it was because Copper felt threatened by a new hunting dog, or just didn't like puppies that would be interpretive. But simply observing his reactions isn't. If someone were to write that Tod and Copper's stuggle was a metaphor for racism or that the ending was depressing that would be adding a personal interpretation. But that's not what's been done, the summary merely describes the plot and characters. I thought it was poorly written, so I merely tried to make it sound more professional. I'll go back again and try to trim unnessessary sentences and words to shorten it to hopefully improve the article.Ash Loomis (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't see her farming, we see her milking a cow. People can have a milk cow without being a farmer. We also can't say Tod was being "resistant." His mom was just killed, he was scared of Big Momma too. There is a difference between observing the actions and deciding what it means. Chief doesn't show he is "uncomfortable" with Copper at all, in my opinion, only disappointed and not wanting to have another dog around. You decided that equaled uncomfortable, but that isn't the view used by everyone. Again, the plot should be a straight summary of what is said and done, not attributing unstated feelings and emotions when they are not clear. For example, if there is a scene in which a character is crying with no explanation given as to why, then saying "X cried" is summary. Saying "X cried in sorrow" is getting into the interprative area. They might be crying because they were happy, disappointed, or sad. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're arriving at the same conclusions, you're just phrasing them differently. I think Tod was resistant to Tweed at first, because he was scared and his mother had been killed. Chief was uncomfortable with Copper because he didn't want there to be another dog around for whatever reason. But I see your point and I took it into account while trimming the plot summary some more. How's it looking now? Anything that needs to be done of the opening by the way? It's tagged, but looks fine to me. I'd be happy to expand anything that needs expanding thoughAsh Loomis (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The plot section is looking much better! Thanks :) For the opening, it should follow the guidelines of the film MoS and WP:LEAD, being a short summary of the article that someone can read quickly to get the highlights of the article without having to read it. Basically an "abstract" of the whole article. I find, though, tackling a lead rewrite usually is easiest when the rest of the article issues have been addressed and the article as a whole is in relatively decent shape. Otherwise the lead has to be redone everything the article is changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Copper's breed?

In the film, it is never mentioned what breed of dog Copper is. How does Wikipedia know that he's a bloodhound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapy Chocolate (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an error and I'll correct it. He only says he is a hound dog, and its pretty obvious he is not a bloodhound. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I find when Copper's a child, he looks like a basset hound, then looks more like a bloodhound when he gets older. I'm guessing the animators studied two different breeds when preparing to animate Copper, which makes pinning him down as any specific breed very difficult. Tod is obviously a red fox though. In any case, it's not really important, it's a minor detail that doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. The film would be the same no matter what their specific breeds are. Ash Loomis (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2