Talk:The Rescuers Down Under

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Animation: American / Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Film: American / Animated

	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.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal The Rescuers Down Under is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Disney Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Animation portal This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

rumour

There was a rumour that a picture of a topless woman had been inserted into this film, as it had been in the original Rescuers film, during the beginning flight scene in Australia. The rumor has been proven false, since each frame of the film was scrutinized during production using the CAPS system.

This doesn't prove no such picture exits in the movie, as it can still be inserted in post-production. --Abdull 21:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I saw a picture in the movie. The rumor is true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.46.102 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of the trivia?

I'm not going to delete it but, what's the point of it? Might as well list other films released in the same year. Eratticus

I have no idea, and no such reluctance to delete. Jgm 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and changed the section about how the rescuers was disneys firts animated film to not have musical numbers which is infactual since the black cauldron was the first.

Technically, Fantasia was the first and The Rescuers, if you mean the original 1977 classic as opposed to its sequel, did have 4 full-blown songs, two minor songs and two reprises.

I think this might be incorrect "This is the first and only film in the Disney animated features canon to take place on the continent of Australia.". Finding Nemo was on the Disney animated features canon list and took place on the Australian continent.

Truth be told, Nemo is not in the canon: movies made by Disney/Pixar do not count, only those made primarily by Walt Disney Feature Animation. Actually, it is Disney's second animated feature of any kind that is set in Australia. --Sl g r a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that guy in the picture?

First of all... who is that guy in the picture? Second... why is that not what the caption says it is? And third... in case (and I mean "in case") its neither Cody or his VA... why is it there? Ralf Loire 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. It's admittedly been a while since I saw the movie, but I don't recall it being that photorealistic...-- NordicStorm (t/c) 18:16, 10

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Animals

Were the animals that McLeach captured ever rescued? 64.105.136.151 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People actually think up questions like that? Hondo77 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the movie for a long time. So could you stop being a jerk and answer my question please? 64.105.136.151 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't rescued on-screen. Hondo77 (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The giant eagle in the movie can't be a "golden eagle" if we are assuming it has to be native to australia. Most likely it would be a Wedge-Tailed Eagle. Just a though 198.22.236.230 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get perhaps a reference/source on that topic? It might be moot entirely considering the SIZE of the eagle in question, I don't think any eagle does or did exist of that size. Evondral (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

would someone mind having the phrase "The Rescuers 2" redirect to this? currently the first term for searching that is the Little Mermaid. this article isn't even on the first page of the search, though there is occasional mention of it in the description of other articles. it would make things easier for dopes like me who forgot the full name of this movie. thanks! 128.61.45.136 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marahute is a girl

It calls her a him in the first sentence of the summary someone fix it my account isn't autoconfirmed i'm lazy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpnel.m1d (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Please Let Me Edit Rescuers Down Under.Please,If You Do You Are Welcome,And a good friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdkar (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Unblock it now please

121.44.106.217 (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Jnorton7558 (alt) (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

made-up edits

The Cast section of the article features direct and plot references to alleged spin-offs for both The Rescuers and The Rescuers Down Under that, as far as I can tell, never existed. These references are unsupported by any citation and, I believe, completely made-up. It's been years since I've edited Wikipedia (under a different IP address); so while I will attempt to remove the incorrect information, I am also adding this note for future reference. 50.182.111.133 (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanks for catching and fixing those problems! --McDoob AU93 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian home media

VHS

July 15, 1992 (Abril Vídeo) (cancelled / scrapped)
July 10, 1998 (Abril Vídeo)
August 5, 2004 (Walt Disney Home Entertainment)

DVD

August 5, 2004 (Walt Disney Home Entertainment)
September 12, 2012 (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)

Blu-ray

September 12, 2012 (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)

Streaming

September 12, 2012 (Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment)
2020 (Disney+) 187.255.222.126 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody's Age

According to the Pure Good Wiki and Disney wiki, Cody is six years old? Where is his age revealed? Evope (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

@Hondo77 Please discuss your plot trim here. MOS:FILMPLOT recommends between 400-700 words, your edit took the plot below that to 222 from 642. Indagate (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my last revision, per WP:PLOTSUMNOT "A plot summary is not a recap. It should not cover every scene and every moment of a story." The previous summary tried to do both. And as I also mentioned, my edit should not just have been reverted without substantive comments. Per WP:DOREVERT, "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits." My edit was neither. If someone thought that an important plot point should not have been removed then they could have added it back in and it could have been discussed (if necessary), along with alternatives in WP:PARTR. No reversion of my plot change gave a substantive reason other than the previous summary wasn't too big. Size is not the issue. There was *way* too much detail in the previous summary. Hondo77 (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of anything, you shouldn't have reverted 6 times, especially without starting any discussion etc. Please read WP:BRD.

I've not seen the film recently so can't edit plot really but 222 is very low for a 77min film, MOS:FILMPLOT. It can be reduced a little and stay within the recommended range but not as much as you did. Indagate (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that there are important plot points that were left out, you are free to add them. Hondo77 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]