Talk:Happy Feet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines
Flag Happy Feet is part 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

Happy Feet is also the name of a medical condition due to lack of vitamins in the diet of allied POWs held by the Japanese. As with most of these things, the name is ironic. Markb 12:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Song

I'm not certain if it's the title or just part of the lyrics, but I think there's also a dance-related song of the same name. Andjam 13:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There is. It's a pop standard from the 1930's or 1940's:

"Happy feet, I've got those happy feet Give them a low down beat, and they begin dancing..."

Unfortunately, a very good number of viewers won't get the reference... :(

Furthermore, that may in fact be the whole point of this so-called "movie" (given the main characters penchant for tap dancing), not to mention the whole ostricism (sp?) thing. "Main character is different from everybody else" "Everyone makes fun of him because it" "As a result he becomes an out cast" Etc. Etc. Etc...

NEXT!

[edit] Gallery

Just wanted to ask yall' if you could add somne photos and posters for the new Happy Feet gallerry. Thank You. 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

Does anyone know what the "penguin" says after the song? It sounds like: "I know Fridays can be a little wonky... But don't worry. I love you!" Is this correct?

I belive he says " I know, size can be daunting, but don't be afriad. I love you. I love you!" DPM 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March of the Penguins' French title unnecessary?

Considering the fact that the English WP article for March of the Penguins is in English, is it necessary to refer to it by its French title? --SidP 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Fagstein 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article about characters

Please, can anyone create articles about the characters? This would be cool.

Well we probably could but for Wikipedia we probably dont need a whole new article - there not really that important DPM 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Joker

Wouldn't the lyrics of The Joker be inappropriate for children?

Not moreso than any other lyrics used in the movie. -SabineLaGrande 09:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeb/Kev

IMDB says that Steve Irwin voiced 'Kev'; Wikipedia says it's 'Jeb'. Any idea what's going on there? -- Mithent 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, two actors are credited as "Kev". I'm almost certain that the actual name of Steve Irwin's character is "Trev" in the credits- can anybody confirm this? I do know that it's definitely not Jeb. -SabineLaGrande 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Ignore that. It's Kev. -SabineLaGrande 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
In the credits at the end of the movie, I believe it said Steve voices Trev.

Confirmation?Aang-kai 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other References?

In one commercial that I saw for this movie, Mumble and the five adelies go "waaaAAAAAAaaayyyyooooh! waaaAAAAAAaaayyyyooooh!" while sllllooooooowwwwwwwwlllly walking away from the leopard seal on the ice, possibly to mock him. This sounds an awful lot like something I saw from homestarrunner.com.

[edit] Delete Bible Connection Section?

Although the elders did resemble a clergy of sorts, is that "Bible Connection" part really needed in the plot area? To me it just sounds some wiki editor's opinion. At any rate it does not seem encyclopedic. --Oreo masta 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. It's riddled with typos and seems to be a random opinion shoved in there. --Johnalexgolden 02:27, 18 November 2006 (EST)

-- It was inane and I deleted it. A|W @ 12:46 20 November 2006.

I think whoever came up with it was a genius and should be commended. -User:Lordmuffin

It doesn't really help the reader at all, and doesn't assert it's notability; why it's important and should stay on an encyclopedia.
I'm sorry if I offended you Lordmuffin. Abby724 23:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this section says "Some people say" (paraphrase) instead of citing a source, I say it's def. a legitamate question: is this section encyclopedic. I haven't heard anybody talking about that, and didn't make that inferance myself while watching the film. If a source could be cited, or it has been talked about a lot, sure. I can see the point of the person who wrote the section, but it does also seem to be opinion. 69.255.44.223 05:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section

The comment here about Mumbles being renamed David in the zoo is off, I think. I got the strong feeling, from the tone of the penguin's voice and the content of his discourse, that it was a reference to 2001's HAL and its conversations with Dave Bowman. --Persnickety 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review Section

Edwpat wrote (on 04:36, 18 November 2006): "Wikipedia does not showcase movie reviews. General receptions from critics c[a]n be noted, but not single reviews."

Edwpat, the review section should be added to, not deleted. I encourage you find other reviews of Happy Feet (favorable, unfavorable, neutral, etc.) and add them to the review section.72.82.177.110 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All reviews that I have posted in the past have been deleted for that reason. Therefore, if my reviews are not perm itted, neither are yours. edwpat http://www.dancaster.com/ejw Elijah Wood Perfomer for Our Time site.
Ridiculousness. Almost every single major motion picture Wikipedia article has critical reaction information in it. I do not know who told you about this alledged policy against critical reaction passages in motion picture articles, but as long as the passages are truthful, cited (a pet peeve of mine) and are from professional and/or very well known movie reviewers (in other words, critics like Roger Ebert, Michael Medved, Joel Siegel, etc., not critics who write for a high school newspaper or Quote whores.) it is perfectly okay to add them to articles about major motion pictures.72.82.206.120 03:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Given your comments, I went ahead and added 2 reviews to the section and POOF, someone came in an eradicated not only mine, but yours. I think there's a difference of opinion out there, but I've given up a long time ago. If my reviews are zapped, I will zap any reviews I see until the Wikipedian council of Stoic and Non-inspirational Oligarchy convene near Nicene later this millenium.

[edit] Production?

I removed the Savion Glover reference from the Soundtrack section and put it in the Cast section, for lack of a better place. Perhaps there needs to be a Production section, if there's enough info to warrent it? Glover's participation is perhaps notable enough to stand on its own, but I'd like to see more about what else made this movie unique, production wise. Maria 13:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify Tag

I changed the tag from very long to wikify. The article doesn't seem ridiculously long, but it does seem to be in need of some reorganization. Pnkrockr 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think with the plot additions that were recently made that section is ridiculously long. I think we need a general plot overview, not a long, adjective filled sentence about every possible scene in the movie.

I think a detailed plot description is fine, but the current one is a little too long. -- Annie D 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that the problem with the article's length seems to be with the plot. I changed the tag to highlight the plot being overly long Pnkrockr 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latino vs. Hispanic?

Ramón is incorrectly referred to as "Latin," which is something I wish to rectify, but what to change it to? Would it be more PC to refer to the Amigos as Latinos or Hispanics? I'm leaving this up to someone else to fix, but I hope it is. Maria 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to Adelie penguin because there is no need to bring up race, which technically is never mentioned in the movie anyways. I figured it would be easier to refer to the penguins by their species, rather than by the implied race. It might be appropriate to mention his accent, but until we call all of the other penguins white, black, southern, etc., I think this works.

Ramon and his Amigos are Rockhopper or Macaroni penguins. If you look them up on wikipedia, you can see the pictures of Rockhoppers and Macaronis, and it becomes obvious that that is what they are supposed to be. Rockhoppers and Macaronis are from Argentina and Chile, which I always thought was what accounted for the accent among those penguins.

That would make sense, but doens't account for where the other accents come from (the Scottish accent, the American Southern accents) so I don't know if the accent is supposed to necessarily go with the actual place the penguins are from. Pnkrockr 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings Section

Removed bit about Happy Feet being shown on FoxNews because of the ecological message. The sentence was confusing, as it is unlikely the entire movie was shown on FoxNews [1] and, while there is a mention of the movie on FoxNews made on, it's a review of the movie. Pnkrockr 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity to other...

There's already a section Similarity to other Movies, I was just wondering what the consensus is on mentioning the similarity of the story of Happy Feet to stories in other media. In particular I was thinking of the book The Trumpet Of The Swan, which is about a swan's inability to perform the courtship trumpeting sound because he has no voice, and after he is outcast by his community, he learns to play a human trumpet as a compensation. Worth mentioning in the article? -- Annie D 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reference for that comparison, then go ahead. If not, and it is your personal observation, it dangerously falls into original research which is not allowed. Berserkerz Crit 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Annie D 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews Section

Since this movie has an ovewrwhelmingly positive rating at RottenTomatoes and is the number one film at the box office, why is the first review cited the extremely negative one from conservative hack Michael Medved (who, to my knowledge, is not widely accepted as a "mainstream" film critic)? Seems biased to me. KyuzoGator 04:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Medved is simply the most notable of the critics. Some of it did go above the call in PC anti-human, anti-religion gaga.--Bedford 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please keep that kind of right-wing opinion out of the Talk page, it's extremely inappropriate to go off stating opinions in defense of keeping an already bias review in the article, and no, he is not the most notable, I'm afraid I can't personally allow a POV review, liberal, conservative, simply because the movie has an obvious lean.--Revrant 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Norma Jean band

I thought this mention in the Trivia section, placed in by User:71.134.81.136, was odd. The characters of Norma Jean and Memphis are named after Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley, I don't think it's any more subersive than that. I could be mistaken, of course. -- Annie D 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I'm sure to someone who is a fan would find this interesting, but it seems rather off the wall to me, so I've removed the reference for now until proof can be found as to the writers' "motives" involving this "Norma Jean band." Maria 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The whole Contreversy section seemed a little OR-ie, so I removed. It was also badly formatted. Even if it had references, I'm not sure it would be notable to include in the article. After all, they were just "Christaian fringe groups" (emphasis added) and, therefore, may not be notable enough. Cbrown1023 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" is a loaded term, and definitely POV. However, Medved is not an obscure individual. Some note of the criticism is worthwhile into the article, but it should not be blantant POV as was the deleted sections.--Bedford 04:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Criticism is definately needed in the article; I made a separe sub-section for it before this. There are many other things needed in the article. However, this is a small movie and it definately does not need a whole section and sub-sections on indepth discussions of criticism. The Da Vinci Code (film) is one thing, this is another. Cbrown1023 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
all of that information on controversy came directly from christan websites as well as from the news. It's no more OR-ie than reading a book and writing an article on it. it's a little POV, sure, but doesnt merit deletion.
It was still badly formatted and POV. I think some of it should be added under the Controversy section, but not at that detail. -- Annie D 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I will be being re-adding the "Controversy" section:

"Happy Feet has been the source of controversy for many conservatives who call the film 'Dark, disturbing environmental propaganda' (I found a citation: [2])."

I first found out about the Happy Feet controversy on Erie television station WJET-TV 24 while watching Action News 24 sometime in the evening on Thursday night.

I'll have to say that my main thoughts while watching the movie were "wow, this certainly is a blatant (albeit allegorical) attack on conservative Christians." It made the movie feel incredibly heavy-handed and preachy (disregarding the ecological/environmental statements)...so I came to wikipedia and read the Happy Feet entry and saw a short mention confirming that others thought the exact same way. It's since disappeared. I don't think you should discount criticism about this movie from a Christian source just because you think they're "fringe." There's a ton of rational and intelligent people who would agree that this movie was taking an anti-fundamentalist stand. Whether you think it's right or wrong, justified or not, there is criticism about the film that is just as important as your opinion. Just my $0.02. Progoth 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

I removed the leopard seal description in the character section because, frankly, he's not important enough to warrent a paragraph. He has little to do with the plot, aside from the fact that Mumble meets the amigos after escaping from him. We're just wasting space and making the article unnecessarily long(er). Maria 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mambo

Mumble's name is MAMBO. He acquires the nickname Mumble. Even in the Boogie Wonderland sequence, he says to Gloria "Mambo! Mambo! With an O!" Gloria replies, "Uh, uh, baby! It's Mumble!"

Do you have a citation for that? Cos both IMDb (I know not the best) and the Warner Bros Happy Feet page list his name as just Mumble Pnkrockr 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree and you are mistaken. Mumble is always referred to as Mumble, even from the beginning by his father. During Boogie Wonderland, Mumble thinks everyone is exclaiming "Mambo!" which is what he heard the adelie penguins shout when he visited their colony. Gloria corrects him, pointing out that they're saying Mumble and not Mambo. I removed the incorrect assertion from the article. Maria 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. His father calls him "Mambo" the entire film. And during Boogie Wonderland -- RIGHT HERE Mambo/Mumble says "It's Mambo! Mambo! With an 'o"", and Gloria replies, "Uh uh, baby. It's Mumble!" I've seen the film a few times now - his name is Mambo. And just for logic's sake, why in the world would his father call him Mumble in the FIRST PLACE? Especially when he and his mother are the best singing penguins in the group? Memphis calls him Mambo. Everyone begins to call him Mumble save his father -- who is the last to call him "Mumble" (even in the clip, when his mother calls him "Mumble", HE still calls him "Mambo". See the film again, and listen carefully, please. If all else fails, I'll contact George Miller myself and ask him. 24.215.166.135 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Every single official press release and promotional item has called him Mumble. That clip you're referring to only shows that Mumble thinks they should be chanting the adelie penguins' enthusiastic "Mambo!" as he'd seen earlier in the film. Gloria corrects him and says no, they're chanting his name. Memphis calls him "Mumble" because, if you remember, Gloria starts calling him "Mumble" as he's breaking out of his egg and Memphis says, "She can call him whatever she wants." -- Annie D 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course every single PR release calls him Mumble. That's the name in the close credits. It's called "selling a character". I can easily contact George Miller if you like. But I suggest you watch the film again, and listen to the dialogue. Once again, why would his father call him Mumble? (rolling eyes) Watch the film again. Listen to his father in the beginning. It's Mambo. It only turns to Mumble when he's an adolescent.24.215.166.135 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, not every press release calls him "Mumble". Unless "Mambo" is Italian for "Mumble" (laugh) [3] Or Slavic. [4] 24.215.166.135 03:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Early press releases call him Mambo as well. [5] Trust me, it's MAMBO, and turns to Mumble AFTER he has proven he can't sing. Elijah Wood (pictured), the voice of Emperor penguin Mambo in the film Happy Feet, narrates this tale of a terrible oil tanker spill off the coast of Capetown, South Africa, and the marvelous effort to rescue the thousands of African penguins that were affected. - Entertainment Weekly 24.215.166.135 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If, for argument's sake, you are right, you still need put an official citation from the creators that in its original English format, his intended true name is Mambo. That article is an independent review, not an official PR, so wikipedia has to stick to the official version (for now). -- Annie D 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above in that the trusted sources are to be accepted. The majority of the sources that are being provided to prove otherwise are hardly trustworthy. Maria 13:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Official Press Release dated 7/11/06 It is the story of "ugly duckling" Mambo, the Emperor Penguin who turns out to be an extraordinary tap dancer. 24.215.166.135 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, just wait for the consensus. -- Annie D 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A consensus? (chuckle) The "consensus" used to be the Sun revolved around the Earth. (shrug) Elijah Wood's character will always be known as Mumble, because that becomes his name. But what would it hurt to say his father named him Mambo at birth, and he soon became known as Mumble? In short: Mumble is his name, but not his GIVEN name. Just like Allen Konigsberg is Woody Allen's real name, but not his name. His real name being Mambo is just trivia, nothing more. I'm not going to change that information, it's not important -- I'm not trying to be confrontational, but just insisting on what the screenplay says. JAF1970 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You have a great argument, there's no need to be patronizing. I'm all for admitting that I made a mistake, and definitely all for adding a piece of trivia that is accurate and informative, but I just can't speak for the many others besides myself who are paying attention to this page. -- Annie D 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social-Ecological Message

Can we get some citations for the athiest/free thinking interpretation? There's a lot of weasle words with "some also see the film" and "it is pointed out". Pnkrockr 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is this YouTube of all the conservative complaining YouTube. Maybe it should be reworded to include the specific arguments, without making it seem like society at large did.
  • CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck railed against the animated film Happy Feet, calling it "propaganda".
  • Fox News' Neil Cavuto whined about the movie, calling Happy Feet "offensive," "big-time objectionable," and "far left" political propaganda.
(PS. Don't use the words "whined" or "railed". It's just a quote from the YouTube summary.) JAF1970 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition.

Last night, I added the following to the plot section:

At the end of the movie, there is a scene which shows political leaders conversing about the matter, one of them calling the penguins "lifeless bums at the bottom of the world".

That's true, I added it shortly after watching the movie. I have readded it, if you think it should be removed then please respond here. Thanks. If you think it was worded incorrectly, then please fix it. --SonicChao talk 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifeless Bums

It's "flightless birds."

Then fix it, if it hasn't been done already. That's what I heard at the movies. It was loud because some woman had her cellphone ringing. ;) --SonicChao talk 21:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medved railing against Happy Feet

Well I just caught Medved on Fox News, apparently the belief now is that there's yet another "leftist" message in the movie relating to homosexuality, and some of the penguins being "gay", if someone could find the video of him discussing this with the commentator. I don't think his review should be included now, he's made it painfully obvious he's slammed the movie for it's politics, and I think as a source it violates Wikipedia's NPOV.

[edit] Medved Review

Edwpat wrote (in the Edit Summary on 7 December 2006 at 20:31), "?Critical reviews - Given Medved's personal axe to grind and Wikipedia's no POV policy, deleted that bit of luggage as per TALK suggestion"

I must point out that Michael Medved is a film critic. He has been one for over 25 years, first starting a CNN and was a co-host of Sneak Previews for a dozen years.

But perhaps most importantly, Medved has an ongoing reputation for not allowing his political views to cloud his film critiques.

A few examples. Medved highly rated The Motorcycle Diaries (film), a movie about Che Guevara (a communist guerrilla leader in Latin America). He also highly rated Brokeback Mountain, a movie about an emotional/sexual/romantic relationship between two cowboys.

Even though Medved spoke negatively about the subject matter of these films and their effect on the culture, he still gave both films good reviews. If your claim that he reviews movies according to some political test were correct, then he should have given both of these films bad reviews.

But Medved did not. When he does a film review, he is criticising the film (not its politics).

72.82.177.64 12:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I added "Film Critic" to the Medved review. Furthermore, I set off the C.V. passage in parenthesis and added links. Most importantly, I did NOT change the wording of Edwpat's edit ("nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host").
This is good. We are engaging in an intellectual process about how the facts should be worded and presenting said facts to the readers (rather than engaging in an 'editing'/'deleting said edit' sort of thing).
72.82.181.25 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong about his politics not entering into the fold with this film, he has slammed the movie on, I believe it was Fox & Friends I was watching at the time, for it's political "message", but I'm perfectly happy with his conservative slant at least being noted in this NPOV form, which will allow people to draw a more centered conclusion with that included information.--Revrant 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Changed in Last Year of Production?

Though I have no proof, I have found some evidence to suggest that the so-called "liberal environmentalist" content was added in the final year of production, and was not in the original plan. In the original teaser trailer, for example, Lovelace was voiced by someone other than Robin Williams, and the character did NOT have a 6-pack of plastic rings around his neck. Some might say that "it was just a stand-in voice until they recorded Williams' lines," but animated films typically record the voices first, THEN animate. The trailer also contained no references to a fish shortage, nor did the original production photos contain any images of live-action humans. Can anyone find more on this?

[edit] Happy Feet and the Box Office

Happy Feet made 3 million less than Apacolyto this weekend, and 3 million more than Blood Diamond. After 3 weeks as the No. 1 Box, it slipped to No. 3, marginally beat in No. 2 spot by The Holiday. Blood Diamond came in at No. 5. Happy Feet in the US stands at 138 million. It just opened to rave reviews in the UK, where it will most likely do as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edwpat (talk • contribs) 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Mea Colpa edwpat I add so much on ikiP., that I sometimes forget to ID myself. One would think the world would know me by now. But I guess I'll need to wait 'til the book comes out.

[edit] Please remove the Medved review!!

All politics aside, Medved is simply a BAD film critic. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't even count his reviews in their consensus. In his HF review [[6]] [[7]], he misspells every single character name he mentions (Lovelace = Loveless, Mumble = Mumbles, The Great Guin = The Great Wind), he gets entire plot details incorrect (for example, he stated that Gloria couples with Seymour in the end and produces tons of chicks at one time - when those chicks are actually their singing class, which Gloria verbally pointed out), and he even goes so far as to juvenilely suggest the film should be called "Crappy Feet." Last time I checked, a film critic should at least be mature about their reviews.

I'd almost rather have no reviews quoted on Happy Feet's Wiki page at all, but Medved's has got to go. As I wrote before, all politics aside, it's simply a poor-quality review with several egregious errors, and not up to Wiki's standards. --71.220.81.18 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to have a mix of positive and negative on Wiki as long as it's noteworthy and can be cited?....see "Along those same lines was columnist Robert W. Butler who stated "[Happy Feet] piles lots of contemporary issues on what should be a simple children’s fable and becomes an overlong, emotionally muted and tiresome epic" and this is written in the article and does not favour the movie in a great light....comments? --Mikecraig 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the representation of positive and negative reviews on a film's Wiki page... that is beside the point. The difference between Butler's review and Medved's piece, for example, is Butler at least bothered to get the details correct, and criticizes the film objectively. From the way Medved discusses the film, it sounds as if he didn't even bother to actually watch it when he sat down. Hence, the poor quality of this review is the main reason I wish for it to be removed. Choose another negative review of the film if the point is for both sides of the spectrum to be represented. --71.220.81.18 04:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate the Medved Review and have removed it at least 3 times; however, since substantial reviews posted show that his review is Maverick and the fact that his credentials are qualified, the review should stand as an example of Wikipedian policy of presenting a balanced view. It also lessens the overall POV of the other reviews. edwpat

So what is your stance on it? Cbrown1023 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retain it edwpat
But how can a poorly-written review be considered "maverick?" Again, I really do understand (and agree with) the concept of posting both positive and negative reviews on a film article to present a balanced view, but the sampling should contain reviews of good quality. I think it is irrelevent that Medved has "qualified credentials" if the specific review in question is badly written and completely ignorant of the film it's supposed to be critiquing. As I wrote before, Medved gets all character names wrong, whole plot details incorrect, and has a generally juvenile (not to mention highly subjective) attitude about the film (i.e. suggesting it be called Crappy Feet - har har). Even if it were someone like Roger Ebert that had written this, I still would want to remove it. A badly-written review is a badly-written review, regardless of the critic in question. --71.220.81.18 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, his first snippet that everyone was fighting over had a political slant, but that wasn't enough, he went on Fox & Friends and suggested the movie has a left wing "gay message" and attacked it again, and now this tripe blog post in which he directly attacks the politics of the movie, something a critic should Never, Ever do, he gets plot details terribly wrong, and makes numerous mistakes, as well as directly insulting the movie in an extremely childish way.
All of that taken into account, along with Wikipedia policy, I'm awestruck that the review, and more so the reviewer, somehow remain credible, what's going on here? Am I missing something? This is such a blatant violation of NPOV with his constant political attacks against the movie, and yes people, it applies to sources as well, he is railing this movie, if this continues, now three attacks on this movie, we might have to make a seperate sub section just to handle all of the hatred he's directed towards the film and his apparent crusade against it.--Revrant 07:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If I, a gay activist with politics dripping from my pores, can put aside my agenda and let a review which is anathema to me - and also anethema to my fan spirit (I am a BIG TIME LIJ fan, run a LIJ site, and a vocal A+F poster) - certainly others can reach balance in this matter. But, go ahead - remove it again - I guarentee it willbe back and you'll go itno an edit spiral. If you have such luxury of time, follow your instincts. I have enough time cleaning up vandalism on Elijah Wood's remaining pages. But cleanliness is next to Godliness, but Medved is just piss in the wind. edwpat
I personally have no intention of doing anything, I tried before, but the anons simply put it back at first chance, maybe the article should be protected until the popularity of the film dies down, though with the inclusion of his Conservative slant I feel people can establish his review is POV, and to the "negative" critique argument, we have those, it's no longer a valid argument, I'm still outright disgusted by this Anti-NPOV stance so many people have taken though, NPOV is part of Wikipedia for a reason and people should strive to respect it instead of ignore it.Revrant 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like only one or a few individuals are behind the re-insertion of the Medved review, notably User:68.45.167.86 -- Annie D 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at that, protection is certainly looking better, then, isn't it? Someone should go about getting that done then.Revrant 09:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This just in from Fox News: Happy Feet = Liberal Propaganda, not appropriate for kids!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8dplC-V9GM&NR

These people are so ****ing stupid.

Apparently they find it offensive that there are political messages in a kid's movie. Cause y'know, little kids are SO going to pick up on those and grow up to be liberal homosexual flag burners.

The idea that there are "Far left" political messages in the movie is in of itself a pretty far-fetched suggestion.

Seriously, like little kids will pick up on that. Dragong4 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/p/Talk%7EHappy_Feet_b215.html"