Talk:The Cat in the Hat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The Cat in the Hat is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Children's literature 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 see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Film Section 2 Misc. 3 Dewey revolt? 4 Subarticle for TV adaptation? 5 The third book 6 Vandalism? 7 "Parodies"? 8 Look Say Reading Programs?

[edit] Film Section

Just to mention that I find it funny that this article is viciously hostile to the film adaptation but no one is editing it for NPOV. Nor does it need to be, I think: since there is a nearly perfect consensus that it's an abomination, it's actually proper NPOV to trash it! That really says something about this film. --Shibboleth 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Shibboleth. From a personal point of view I'm glad you agree that the movie is an abomination. But for me the real force of your remarks is that Wikipedia editors who abominate the film should be extra vigilant that the discussion respects NPOV--and if you see fit to call the article "viciously hostile," then surely we're in trouble on the NPOV front, despite your disclaimer.

Along these lines, I think there's one item (from me originally) where the article may be going overboard. In truth, the film almost made the production costs from the American receipts, and once the foreign receipts and income from the video are factored in, it seems possible that the studio will end up with a profit.

I'd like to check into this a bit and possibly alter the text. Unfortunately this is a hard area for research, since studios are notoriously evasive about the profits of films. If you or anyone else knows how to get data in this area please do mention it. Cheers, Opus33 16:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason the description seemed hostile to me is that it describes the film as being reviled by critics and ordinary viewers alike, with no mention of anyone at all who liked it. Although this isn't quite the same as going out and saying "This film is awful", it's impossible not to come out with that impression. Although I don't particularly object to this :), it's true that Wikipedia is not generally in the business of making aesthetic judgements.

Examining further, I think the POV lies in this sentence: The film appears to have been more popular with fans who had enjoyed Mike Myers's previous work. The words "appears" and "more" make it sound like Mike Myers fans only liked it somewhat more than others, but still generally disliked it. However, examining the Yahoo reviews, I see that some Mike Myers fans in fact wholeheartedly liked it (see [1],[2],[3]). See also [4], a very positive review from a fan of the South Park movie. Finally, some children liked the movie ([5]) --- although in the case of children it seems outweighed by reports of their crying or being bored --- and a common theme among adults who liked the movie said it should be taken as a children's film.

I've modified the paragraph to make it clearer that some people unabashedly liked it. I can't help with the box office data, though, but I've written that it's "likely" to make a profit. --Shibboleth 20:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Shibboleth, we have to report the truth no matter how unpleasant.  :=) Opus33 22:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The second half of this section has serious problems with citing its sources. Example:

Web data suggest that the most harshly negative opinions were held by individuals who knew Seuss's book and felt that the film was a desecration.

If there is "web data" it should be fairly easy to find and link to. Unfortunately, the article doesn't state who compiled the data, making it difficult to track down. This paragraph cites good reviews by Joel Siegel and Jeffrey Lyons. Since these are respected film critics, it should be fairly simple to cite the publications, or link to the websites, where these reviews are located. The last sentence of this paragraph contains a weasel term:

Fans say it should be watched with a lighthearted attitude and without expecting it to be the same as the books.

This should be clarified and cited as to which fans say this.

The last paragraph states something Mike Myers said in an interview, but does not cite the publication. There is no way to know whether or not this is original research.

These problems are what is contributing to the NPOV problems with the section. However, there does seem to be a general consensus in the critical community and the general public that the film is abyssmal. If this section is appropriately cited, it would clear up the NPOV issue. --malber 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

I've removed a pseudo-intellectual parody review from this talk page that had no bearing on the article content. If you like this sort of thing, it's available here, among other locations. 82.92.119.11 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removing Suess from the page which is clearly meant to be read aloud and actualizing Suess with cinema or some other visual media doesn't work. You can't get as big or certainly not bigger than what the printed story feeds the imagination and that is where the movie went wrong. And Suess's characters are parodies of real people. Realising them shows a lack of understanding of what Suess was doing.

[edit] Dewey revolt?

The article writes Dr. Seuss also regrets the association of his book and the 'look say' reading method adopted during the Dewey revolt in the 1920's. I don't know what the Dewey revolt is, but it sounds interesting. However, the lined article refers to a Thomas Dewey who was a New York City prosecutor in the 1930s, and later a politician. I suspect the link is wrong. Can anyone who knows what this means correct it? Notinasnaid 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct reference is Dewey, John Dewey rather than Thomas Dewey.

[edit] Subarticle for TV adaptation?

User:Pig de Wig moved the TV section into a subarticle without discussing it here. It doesn't seems necessary to me, since the article was only 8k long before the move. I reverted, but would be happy to hear if there is a good reason for the move. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It did seem nicely symmetrical with the film. If the movie gets its own entry, why doesn't the TV adaptation? What criteria are used to decide? If the decision is made NOT to accept this subarticle, there is a big mess unless The Cat in the Hat (television special) is deleted soon, as there is the potential for well meaning editors to edit either one. Notinasnaid 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Notinasnaid and User:Pig de Wig seem to agree and I don't have a strong opinion either way, so the move stands. I'll make sure that the changes are merged. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The third book

The first line of this article says that the Cat in the Hat is featured in three books, but as far as I can tell the entry only mentions two. (Although I could be being blind!) Is there a third book, in which case can someone edit to add it, or is the first line wrong? Tasiel 14:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Hello, i usually just use wikipedia but i saw the following so i logged in and removed it:

Alternate Endings

Dr. Seuss is transfered to Sootopolis City, where a bunch of cats push Dr. Seuss down a cliff. Then he lands inside water where a Gyarados is almost about to eat him whole until Pookeyman captures it. Then Dr. Seuss is free for a while ... then he appears in the night, touching peoples faces. Then he touches that kid who said Sonic Riders was for kids races and that kid gets freaked out and calls the bolice! "THIS IS BOLICE!!!" the bolice said and the police sent Dr. Seuss to jail until he came back to say "I will touch your face! And when the moonlight leaves and the dawn settles, you will know you've been visited!" to people. Then one night, when he was trying to go to Blue Kirby's house, Magna Centipede came saying "MAGNA BREAKOUT CENTIPEDE!!!" and scared him away. Dr. Seuss tried to call for help but then Sonja, Jess, and Eagle sent out their armies towards Dr. Seuss. THEY SENT BOMBERS, NEOTANKS, AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS AT DR. SEUSS!!! Dr. Seuss was shot some but then chased more by them and Magna Centipede. Then a few Natus came. Since he wasn't near, but was still a pain, Natu still wanted to kill people. Natu told Dr. Seuss to go to the Safari Zone up in Hoenn and gave him a bike and told him how to use it. Dr. Seuss went to Safari Zone still while being chased by Magna Centipede, Eagle, Sonja, and Jess. Then Dr. Seuss ended up in Safari Zone. When Dr. Seuss went to Safari Zone and then the Axbot appeared singing a lame Lumberjack song which the Missile launcher instantly destroyed. Then Xatu appeared yelling out "I R SNIPE UR HEAD OFF!!!" and Dr. Seuss was severely injured afterwards. Black Mage tried to appear but Magna Centipede told him no and to tell him to try it later. Magna Centipede then grabbed Dr. Seuss and told him to go to the nearest T Copter and "to go to Heaven" or be killed once and for all. Dr. Seuss decided to go to the T Copter when the T Copter bought Dr. Seuss to Sly Cooper section, where there were strangely lots of Porygons everywhere. Then Sly Cooper said "LAME ANIMAL CHARACTER!!! YOU DIE!!!" and then Sly Cooper ran over Dr. Seuss with his Porygon!!! CAT IN THE HAT PWNED!!! COOL CHARACTERS WIN!!!

I'm reasonably cerain rocket launchers and pokemon have exactly nothing to do with Dr. Seuss and the Cat in the Hat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CheshiresMasquerade (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 September 2006.

I think it is a solid candidate for WP:BJAODN! Thank you for moving it to the talk page. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Parodies"?

Regarding the article subsection on "The Cat NOT in the Hat": wouldn't that be satire, not parody? Parody is fair use in the US, satire not so much. WindAndConfusion 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look Say Reading Programs?

There is no documentation or source to support "Dr. Seuss books were created to supplement the 'look say' reading programs taught in schools." Once the books were published, they might support the 'look say' method, however I'm fairly certain this was not a primary motivation during the creative pre-publication process. Picturebooks 17:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)