Jump to content

Talk:Where the Wild Things Are (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Measuring in Douglases

[edit]

During building of the fort distances are measured in Douglases, who is a parrot. It's a main story of famous (in Russia) animation 38 Parrots. Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere? David tm (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list

[edit]
  • I've removed the very strange cast list. I don't see this on the web, only Catherine Keener is mentioned (I don't think they've done much casting beyond that yet). Unless a source for this info is given... --Etacar11 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

In case anyone are interested in where it says suitmation and animatronics are involved in the movie:

Two guys named John Nolan and Adam Keenan are responsibel for the animatronics parts; 1 and 2.

As for the suitmation; Take a swim on the wild side

"The seven creatures stand up to 275 centimetres tall. Although made of foam, they are heavy and hot for the actors and stunt doubles operating them. Word is they wear them with the head on for no more than 30 minutes at a time, with 10 and 15-minute breaks in front of an air-conditioner.

"They're earning their money, don't you worry," a production source said. A "war games" scene had been particularly tiring, he added. "On the hot days, they're losing up to three or four kilograms."

Comedian Sam Longely, US basketballer Luc Longley's brother, is more than two metres tall and inhabits the largest creature. Heavy boots inside the suit and massive clawed hands make it difficult to move.

It is a live action film, but a sizeable portion - believed to include the character's faces - will be computer-generated." 193.217.195.244 14:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the anecdotes about Melissa Davis and Rachel Rivera? The discussion page on Rachel Rivera states that the actress once cast in this movie is a different woman with the same name. Playing Mantis (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

The production of this film is completed, but the studio is not happy with it. They reshot a lot of it, and are now possibly being asked to scrap the whole thing. The release/promotion has been put on hold.

^ Nope. They just released the trailer and the release date is set. Source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.229.193 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

"Where the Wild Things Are is a highly anticipated upcoming 2009 film adaptation of the Maurice Sendak 1963 children's book of the same name." - From the intro paragraph. I'm going to tag it with a neutrality tag until the claim of "highly anticipated" is backed with sources. 69.161.78.31 (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending language was removed. The rest of the article seems to be written NPOV, so I think the Neutrality tag should be removed. Thoughts? --Nanorlb (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed it. I would have removed the non-neutral language, but I figured I would give someone some time to cite that this is a "highly anticipated" movie (I don't have anything against the movie, I think it looks good, it just didn't seem anticipated). However, I doubt anyone will cite it, and I'm glad you edited it. Good work. 69.161.78.31 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New trailer

[edit]

There is a new trailer for Where the wild things are... Should I link to it, though it's not in front of any movies yet? --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary story?

[edit]

In the book, Max's story is presented pretty much as reality, are we sure the movie doesn't do the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfx2k4 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews?

[edit]

How? It hasn't been released yet. 98.14.15.12 (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films are almost always screened to critics before their wide release. Only films that the studio believe will be hurt by reviews (i.e. Meet the Spartans) are released without reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.207.145 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphoric nature of the movie

[edit]

Today, I have twice tried to add the following analysis to the artice on to have two other editors delete it:


Max's imaginary journey to the island is highly symbolic, so much so that movie critic Matt Pais of Metromix suggested the film is likely to be more popular with psychologists than children.
"Youngsters may not like the film but therapists will love it," Pais said. Despite this, Pais praised it: "It's daring. It's funny. It's unusual. It's brilliant."[1]
Director Spike Jonze presents the wild things as metaphors for Max's emotions and real-life experiences. Carol's outbursts, for example, represent Max's inability to control his temper. Yet another wild thing, KW (voiced—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moby-Dick3000 (talk • contribs)
It has been removed as it gives undue weight and violates our original research policies.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you were previously warned of one of these policies. Do you not take the time to read the links in edit summaries?— Dædαlus Contribs 00:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My previous post

[edit]

I was having computer problems before and unintentionally left a partial post. Here's the message I intended to leave.

Today, I have twice tried to add the following analysis to the article only to have users Bovineboy2008 and Daedalus969 delete it:
==Analysis==
Max's imaginary journey to the island is highly symbolic, so much so that movie critic Matt Pais of Metromix suggested the film is likely to be more popular with psychologists than children.
"Youngsters may not like the film but therapists will love it," Pais said. Despite this, Pais praised it: "It's daring. It's funny. It's unusual. It's brilliant." Metromix review
Director Spike Jonze presents the wild things as metaphors for Max's emotions and real-life experiences. Carol's outbursts, for example, represent Max's inability to control his temper. Yet another wild thing, KW (voiced by Lauren Ambrose), behaves much like Max's sister when she develops friendships with boys outside of the family.


I think it would have been much more helpful if those two editors had helped me by looking for more citations to support my claim that the film was symbolic of Max's psyche rather than legalistically quoting Wikipedia policy in order to find an excuse to delete it.
Editors who do this are only using Wikipedia policy against itself to destory the quality of Wikipedia. Any reader can see the above analysis was quite harmless. Also, any adult who has seen the movie would have understood the metaphors in the movie. They are very obvious.
I can see that I'm going to receive no help from other editors so I'm going to look for the citations myself that support my claim and then I will once again post the analysis. If anybody else feels compelled to remove it, at the very least please make an effort to discuss it here first here on the talk page before doing so.
By the way, Daedalus, citing Wikipedia policy hardly constitutes a warning. Also, please refrain from leaving further messages on my talk page. Your behavior has become annoying. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does constitute a warning. It was a removal of a text with a link to the relevant policy, which you then proceeded to ignore and violate again.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poster Choice ?

[edit]

Why use the teaser poster instead of the final one? --Trogga 07:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be two choices of poster ...

I am open to editor WP:Concensus, but I believe (A) the first one is of higher quality and more aestheticly appealing. What are other's thoughts?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 07:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the one on the left looks more, but second one illustrates both characters in the movie and is more up to date as it's not a promotional poster. I'm a bit torn, but I do like the look of Poster A better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for Poster A. All Hallow's (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to throw in my two cents yet as this is not a fair comparison. The size for comparison should be as it will be in the infobox. Poster A is much larger resolution and showing both at this size forces poster B to be scaled up beyond the actual size available and makes it look bad, although in practice both will be likely be shown too small for any of text to be readable. -- Horkana (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resized the images to what they should be in the infobox. I am in favor of A. It seems to be closer along the style of the film. That, of course, is just my opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the fair use policy is slightly overstretched by using these images on the talk page rather than just in the article, and a bot deleted them. I've restored them for now but hard to now if the bot will not just delete them again later. As it stands now the consensus seems to be in for image A, and I tend to agree except for one condition, which poster is the teaser and which is the final poster? Perhaps if B is the official final poster for that reason that trumps any aesthetic considerations and it should be used as it was the film makers final choice even if we might disagree here which is better. -- Horkana (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If B turns out to be the final theatrical poster, then we need to use this one. It does seem that this is the case as B has the release date while A just has "Fall 2009". I am not sure how to come up with a definitive answer on this, though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 05:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem like the sand dune picture is the theatrical release poster so we have to stick with it, a conclusion I assume we'd already reached since it is what the article has. Interestingly the poster tagline ("There's one in all of us") has been nominated for an IMP award. I'd add it to the article but I'm not sure if the IMP awards are notable enough. -- Horkana (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot in lede

[edit]

The plot is currently not mentioned at all in the lede. This needs to be remedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.39.109 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Things Names

[edit]

The name 'Bernard' for the bull is not explicitly listed anywhere in the film, and is only given from external sources, aka the theater production. Should the wikipedia page for the movie really use this name?

Max's age

[edit]

I think Max's age should be changed to 8 years old. I know the official website states he is 9 but the screenplay and the novelization state that he is 8. Since the movie never makes his age clear I think we should go with the age chosen and put into print by the original movie writers. [1] The Wild Things, by Dave Eggers. 2009. McSweeney Press

First please not that new items go at the bottom of a talk page not the top. Second thank you for your research. This looks like a reliable source and I will change it for now. If any other info comes to light it may be changed again. MarnetteD | Talk 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Metromix review

Psychoanalysis in the plot section

[edit]

Over the time since this article was created numerous editors - IP and otherwise - have attempted to add their own psychoanalysis of the events of the film to the plot section. I feel that this is inappropriate. It would seem to violate several guidelines including WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:SYNTH not to mention WP:PLOT. I don't know whether a separate article consisting of reliable sourcing for these speculations might be possible, but, IMO they do not belong in this article. Other thoughts are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to psychoanalysis as its own section, or an article with sections for the film and book. Clearly if sourced statements are provided we need to make sure they're referencing the film, not the book. In any event, I agree that this analysis wouldn't be appropriate for the plot summary. Doniago (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I should amend my statement to include your suggestion of a separate section for sourced psychoanalysis within this article. The caveat being that it should be brief. I suspect that any delving into that territory is likely to be longish and detailed, thus, I suspect that it will likely require a different article. Your pointing out the need to distinguish between the book and the film is also a good one. Thanks again for your suggestions. MarnetteD | Talk 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads on and We Shoot

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the "Making Of" book - Heads on and we shoot - anywhere in the article? It has a lot of viable information in and could come under the merchandise section. 94.192.45.239 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not unless the book is notable on its own terms...but it's worth mentioning here as a possible source for further information about the film. Doniago (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Grinch Teaser Trailer

[edit]

I'm pretty convinced that the teaser trailer that this page says was in front of the live-action Grinch movie doesn't exist. A cursory google of "Where the Wild Things Are" trailer Grinch for anytime before 2008 only gives people quoting the same Guardian article that is cited here, and no discussion of an actual trailer. I've been looking for it for years, and I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist, and should probably be taken out of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.98.215 (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Where the Wild Things Are (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Where the Wild Things Are (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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Where the Wild Things Are (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

animation hybridizing

[edit]

In the early 1980s, Disney considered adapting the film as a blend of traditionally animated characters and computer-generated environments, but development did not go past a test film to see how the animation hybridizing would result.

Unless that phrase has some kind of industry currency on the ground, it should be replaced with hybrid animation to avoid a 1/10 fluency score. It's so bad I filed it on my "string" bucket as a template for a phrase to put into the mouth of a character whose asocial nature the author wishes to tint as a permanent, incurable condition :-( — MaxEnt 16:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2008 reshoots?

[edit]

I had heard that they had done some reshoots in 2007, about a year after the initial film shoot, to add a few scenes to the beginning and the end of the film, (if I can find the article that mentions this, I'll link it) but did they do any in 2008? There were rumors of reshoots in 2008, but the page doesn't mention either reshoot in 2007 or 2008) and I can't seem to find concrete details, only rumors.137.26.203.254 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)ChamberCheck[reply]

Should this be added to category films based on children's book?

[edit]

Should a link to this article be added to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_children%27s_books ? 73.250.29.152 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already in that category. DonIago (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for wasting your time :( I missed the extra page. I'll be more careful. - thanks 73.250.29.152 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Where_the_Wild_Things_Are_(film)&oldid=1205036938"