Talk:The Pink Panther

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Cats
 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.
??? 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.

I think that the 2006 and 2008 films should be removed from this article, in as much as they are mentioned as part of the original series. they are remakes, and have nothing to do with the original's writers, producers, directors, etc.

They are Pink Panther films so they should be mentioned. Qutezuce 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sadly I have to agree that in order to meet the encyclopaedic criteria, they do have to be mentioned somewhere. However, there is a case for putting them and references to Steve Martin's role in a separate section of the page - even the present material points out that they are not a continuation of the existing PP canon, but a "rebooting" of it. See also the related pages Curse of the Pink Panther, Inspector Clouseau, etc. If the Steve Martin films are not directed related but are more of a "repackaging" of the PP image, then they should be listed separately as they are very different. - HTUK 08:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"The diamond was stolen in the first film (but the panther was never shown" -- Ortolan, I'm pretty sure the opening sequence of the first film has the sultan / whoever inspeacting the diamond and being told of the reason for the name. He gazes into it and the camera zooms in. After some 60s-style special effects, the head of the cartoon PP is seen, with a cigarette holder. -- Tarquin 20:14 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

(about the snippet of organ Dreyfuss plays (deleted)) What, you want me to get out my Edition Peters and prove it (I know, Breitkopf is more authoritative, but it's also too d@mn expensive)?

Or is that too trivial? I've always liked knowing that, but then I'm a freakshow. Kwantus 22:41, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that the (early) cartoons were unusual, not just for being silent (except for sound fx) but also for their surreal nature. They were unlike any other cartoons of the time. In addition, they were full of 60's cultural references, such as beatniks.

It should also be pointed that the character of the Inspector never appeared together with the Panther in the original cartoons; though the Panther often clashed with characters resembling him. (They did appear together in the comic book covers.)-Wilfredo Martinez

Contents

[edit] breakout pages

This article needs to be split into seperate pages for each use of the term "pink panther." I will try to work on it later today, but if anyone wants to beat me to it, be my guest. --b. Touch 21:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Black Panthers etc.?

Pardon, but can anyone recall exactly why links are included to the pages for the Black Panthers, Grey Panthers, etc.? Apart from the fact that they include a color and the word "Panther," there seems to be absolutely no connection to the character or the film series. Would anyone object if I were to remove those links? Also, I think a seperate page for discussion of the Pink Panther character and cartoons (and allowing for more indepth discussion of both the origin of his use in the opening credits, and his TV and commercial incarnations) is in order, wouldn't one say? (If I get the time, I may try to do it myself). Aleal 20:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It only makes sense to cross-link to Black Panthers or Gray Panthers if the Pink Panther is also the symbol of some group... such as breast-cancer survivors... or gay rights advocates. I think Snagglepuss has got the latter covered, but I don't know for certain. Wahkeenah 21:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks, Wahkeenah, I needed the laugh. Anyway, links removed. Aleal 00:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From the article

From the article:

The Pink Panther of the title is, in the first film, a diamond supposedly containing a flaw which forms the image of a pink panther, whose theft is the concern of the first film.

The theft of what is the concern of the first film? The diamond, the flaw, the image, or the panther? — JIP | Talk 09:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who own Pink Panther library?

If Turner own MGM library... Why does MGM sell dvds with Pink Panther?

For gods I say

[edit] Cleanup

I have tagged this article for cleanup because the lead section needs a complete rewrite. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon character in lead

I think the cartoon character Pink Panther should get more prominence then it currently has in the lead section because this article is the main article for the cartoon character/animated film series. The fame of this character makes it more than just a "Also, there was a cartoon character...". Qutezuce 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As much as I enjoy the animated character, it would not exist were it not for the films, which are the primary focus of the article. The fact that the cartoons are mentioned in the lead paragraph at all really should be sufficient, in my opinion.
Those who disagree with my take might want to flesh out the information on the cartoons in the body of the article. Perhaps if it become thorough enough, it would justify spinning them off in to a seperate article. unfutz 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
But this article is the only article that the cartoon series has, the films each have their own page. This page is all the cartoon has and all it gets is a tiny mention at the bottom of the intro. I don't think that which came first, or what created what, or what wouldn't be around if it weren't for what matters, the relevant thing is the notoriety each subject has. The Simpsons wouldn't be around if it weren't for The Tracey Ullman Show, but The Simpsons is by far and large much more famous than The Tracey Ullman Show. I don't agree that the primary focus of the article is the series of films, or at least it shouldn't be, the cartoon should be given equal billing, as long as it co-exists on the same page as the film series.
Imagine that you have just come across Wikipedia for the first time, and you want to look up the Pink Panther cartoon character. You come to this article, and what do you see? In bold you see that "The Pink Panther" is a series of (live action) films. Thats not what you are looking for. Maybe this disambiguation thing is what I want. Nope, that just tells me to come back here. Ok I'll read some more. Hmmm, more about the films. Ok, here we go, a tiny mention finally.
My point is that this page is about two things, and as long as this page is about two things both things should be given equal billing, because if a person comes here looking for either of the two things they should easily be able to identify the information relevant to it, not have to hunt for the information for the one thing that is not as famous as the other.
I think that the first thing people think of when someone says "Pink Panther" is the cartoon character, not the diamond from the films, or even the films themselves. In fact, now that I think about it I'm not so sure the first sentence of the article is even true: "The Pink Panther refers to a series of American comedic films which feature the bumbling French police detective Jacques Clouseau." Does anybody actually use the three words "The Pink Panther" to refer specifically to the film series? Doesn't seem likely, more likely "The Pink Panther films" or "The Pink Panther film series". Perhaps the information about the film series should be moved to "The Pink Panther film series". Qutezuce 10:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The above is perhaps a little too ranty. You can skip reading it and just read this. What about creating pages for the film series and the animated character, and make "Pink Panther" a disambig page. Are people in favour of this idea? Qutezuce 17:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think our fundamental disagreement is with the idea that the first thing people think of when "The Pink Panther" is mentioned is the cartoons -- I believe just the opposite to be the case. (This may be a generational thing.) However, I do agree that a disambiguation page would solve the problem. unfutz 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that is our fundamental disagreement, please ignore my long rant comment, that was written with too little thought. My main point now is that this page is (currently) about two different (but related) topics, hence both should be given equal footing in the lead, the relative fame of each is not relevant to this. If you put any two related but distinct topics in one article both should be defined in the lead prominently so that people looking for either topic can find it quickly.
However, this is all a moot point if this page is going to be split up into a film series page and a cartoon character page. I'll wait a little while longer if anyone else wants to weigh in before splitting this page into it's two parts and making "Pink Panther"/"The Pink Panther" the main disambig page for all things Pink Panther. Qutezuce 03:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that splitting up the articles (with a mention in each of the other topic), and adding a disambiguation page is a good idea. unfutz 01:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though a page split is in order then. I hope to get around to it sometime in the coming days. Qutezuce 07:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that the articles have been split, the amount of information about the cartoon appearing in this article should be minimal, enough to inform a reader of its existence and of the existence of the companion article. Accordingly, I've edited down that section to the bare necessary facts, and have transferred some information that appeared only here to the cartoon article. In the future, additional information about the cartoons should appear only in the other article. unfutz 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pink Panther beauty corporation

There is also a beauty corporation by the name... pink panther.

What is the Pink Panther beauty corporation?

does anyone know?

r there any marks?

Information is available at http://reports.fja.gc.ca/fc/1998/pub/v3/1998fc22291.html. Try Googling "Pink Panther Beauty" for more. unfutz 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Panther = Clouseau ?

Who, pray tell, thinks the Pink Panther is Inspector Clouseau? It's not like The Thin Man, where the usage was rather ambiguous. I'm taking that comment out until someone can cite a reference to it. It sounds like the original author maybe got it confused in his own head when he was a young'un. Wahkeenah 10:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's precisely like the Thin Man, where an internal story reference unrelated to the main character of the series is used as the title of the first film, and then is subsequently taken up in the title of later films in the series for reasons of marketing and easy identification. I've restored the reference, but have rewritten it to be more explanatory and neutral in POV. unfutz 04:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, you are not citing anything. The Pink Panther is a very well known cartoon character. Who on God's green earth would be so stupid as to confuse the Pink Panther with Inspector Clouseau??? Wahkeenah 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually "The Pink Panther" is a series of films, to which the cartoon character is subsidiary. This article is about that film series, there is another article that covers the cartoon. In the context of this article, about the film series, the question of what "The Pink Panther" in the title of most of the films in that series (not the cartoons) refers to needs to be addressed, since, in most instances of film series, a repeated reference in the titles (i.e. Mr. Moto, Charlie Chan) will about the lead character. Because that is the common usage, it can lead to the misapprehension that "Pink Panther" in the title of these films (again, we're talking here about the films, not about the cartoon series, which is not the subject of the films) refers to the continuing lead character common to the series, Clouseau. Nothing needs to be cited to justify this, it's a matter of providing necessary information for people who come looking for it. "Hey -- I wonder what "The Pink Panther" in the title of all those films refers to, Madge? Maybe I'll check Wikipedia and see what it says." This is the function of a work of reference. unfutz 06:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Do people actually say "The Pink Panther" when they are refering to the series of live action films? I don't think I've ever seen anyone use just "The Pink Panther" to mean the film series. If they meant the film series they would say "The Pink Panther film series", "The Pink Panther series of films", or "The Pink Panther films". If someone says "The Pink Panther" then they are refering to either one of the two films with this name, the cartoon character, or the song. Secondly, the cartoon character is not subsidiary to the film series, the cartoon character has it's own existence with it's own series of films and television shows independent from the live action films. I think that this page (the film series page) should be moved to a suitable title (eg "The Pink Panther film series"), and "The Pink Panther" should become the main disambiguation page. Qutezuce 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My specific complaint is the assertion that many people confuse the panther with the inspector. It's fine to state that the panther is the jewel and not the inspector, and let it go at that. To state that people actually are confused is, until proven otherwise, uncited and unverifiable. Wahkeenah 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
If that's your complaint, then it's been dealt with -- that assertion is no longer made in the paragraph in question, or elsewhere in the article for that matter. The confusion, however, is quite real, in spite of your disbelief of its existence. unfutz 12:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it has indeed been dealt with, until someone messes with it again. However, I would still like to see something that proves there is such confusion. Is our educational system really that far gone? Wahkeenah 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example -- a review of the recent Steve Martin prequel which refers to the "title character’s struggle to communicate because of his accent". http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=23383 unfutz 12:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I see your point... although the article also makes it clear that the Pink Panther is a diamond. It's that kind of sloppy writing that could lead to confusion. I weep for the younger generation. ); Wahkeenah 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one (a Google cache) "Steve Martin as The Pink Panther?" it asks. http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:VJPn5D-8To8J:www.maagic.net/thereforum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D9230+%22steve+martin+as+the+pink+panther%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8 I'm sure some more Googling will find other instances.
I see. This usage is indeed becoming like The Thin Man... and also like Frankenstein. I remain unconvinced that very many people actually think that the inspector and the panther are the same thing... I think it's just a convenient reference point. We can also blame the creators for any conusion. The second and third films didn't say anything about the panther because the jewel did not figure into the plot. The fourth one featured the jewel and the name of the jewel in the title, and the films after that used the name without the jewel, although the recent Martin film does feature the jewel. Anyway, I think the article is OK the way it reads now. Wahkeenah 13:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Pink Panther movies

Why is it that the first Pink Panther movie (The Pink Panther, 1963) is completely unlike all the others? It does have Clouseau in a major role, but he shares a major role with Charles and George Lytton, and the main part of the film concerns Clouseau's wife (who I don't remember appearing in any other films) cheating on him. All the other films have Clouseau as the unquestionable star. In fact, the second movie (A Shot in the Dark, 1964) already develops all the usual characteristics, for example Dreyfus and Cato are treated like well-established characters and running gags, although they did not appear in the first movie. Was the entire mythos of the films redesigned when the rights were transferred from Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer to United Artists? JIP | Talk 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The better question is, "Why are all the others different from the first one?" The article contains the basis of the answer. The Clouseau character was a major part of the first film, but was not necessarily the central character. David Niven had every bit as important a role. The many "sequels" are in a sense more like "spinoffs", in that they focus on Clouseau. As for what happened to Clouseau's wife, in the fictional sense one might assume that she divorced him when he went to prison (and probably took up with "The Phantom"), or she could be dead; in the practical sense, how far could they milk the joke that she was two-timing him with "The Phantom"? It was better to just write off the character, and leave Clouseau as strictly a clown with no real life. The style of the sequels or spinoffs was strictly cartoonish, with very little of at least the semblance of realism that existed in the first one. Wahkeenah 22:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • If we only consider the first two movies (The Pink Panther) and (A Shot in the Dark) we can say that MGM/UA were experimenting with different kinds of comedic films. First they made a typical comedy about love affairs, with an air of slapstick humour. Then they thought that the Clouseau character was well received, so they thought to expand on him and create a more straight parody of a detective movie without so much romance. This turned out to be a big hit, so they stuck on it. It is notable that the second movie is the only one not to have "The Pink Panther" or "Clouseau" in its title, or to show the Pink Panther in the credits. I think this is because the Panther was never intended to be a recurring character (or should I say, item) - they just wanted each movie to be have a different, unique title. But then they found out how big a hit Depatie-Freleng's animated Pink Panther was, so they brought him back in the third movie, and kept him ever since. JIP | Talk 17:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
In the article, speaking of A Shot in the Dark it is said that it "was quickly re-written to capitalize on the popularity of the original film". Actually, as it is stated in IMDB, this movie was finished before The Pink Panther, so I will take that sentence out. Anyway, A shot... was released only 3 months after The Pink Panther, hardly time enough to rewrite a script to capitalize on the success of the first released movie. Nazroon 17:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If it was actually filmed before the Pink Panther was releasted, the best they could have done was to re-edit the film to change its tone somewhat and/or to re-shoot some scenes in a big hurry. However, it sounds like someone's guesswork. Wahkeenah 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two series of cartoons

Besides the movies, there were two different series of cartoons. The first series followed Depatie-Freleng's title's style, and never had any spoken lines. The second series was a more mainstream cartoon show, with all characters, including the Pink Panther, having speaking roles. I have watched both series and have noticed the difference between them, but I don't know anything else. Could someone explain the difference? Were they produced by different companies? Or was it simply a modernisation of the series? JIP | Talk 21:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright?

How come the Pink Panther cartoon character could be adopted as a mascot by an insulation company etc???--Jack Upland 07:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The owner of a copyright can license it to anyone they want, for whatever fee they like. Qutezuce 08:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course they can. I presume you're saying they did.--Jack Upland 00:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If they hadn't, Corning would have been slapped with an infringement suit immediately. Wahkeenah 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the song

i think that the song for the pink panther needs its own article.it did have its own article for a while,but someone changed it again. User:67.185.150.130 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What song? The Mancini theme? An entire article about it? I can't see it. Please elaborate. Wahkeenah 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

yes,the song by the genius henry macini[i know that was an opinion but stll...] we could put say its popularity,instruments it can be played on,etc...

That seems extremely thin, not really enough to hang an entire article on. Really, the theme song gets several mentions in the main article as it is, which should be enough. If there's something particularly important about the song (which, I agree, is great) which should be mentioned, perhaps there's a say to work it in there -- but not anything as trivial as what instruments it can be played on (which instruments can't it be played on?). Did it reach #1 status in the US or UK? That would be significant. Has it sold more than any other theme song, or something similar to that? That would be notable. In short, what facts are you suggesting need to be available to Wikipedia readers? Why not list them here to convince us that your case is a strong one? unfutz 07:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Even if you created a separate article anyway, someone down the road would likely merge it in. However, feel free to offer an example... and any opinions, since this is the editorial page, not the article. Wahkeenah 22:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

is there a section about the song in the article about the musical genius henry mancini?67.185.150.130

  • In the first paragraph, the link takes you to a separate article on Mancini. Wahkeenah 23:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Moore as the Inspector?

So, did Roger Moore act in "Curse of the Pink Panther" or not? IMDB says yes, Roger Moore's page says no, and the Curse of the Pink Panther page is unclear.

Someone please clear this up! Eptin 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Moore's page doesn't say no, it just doesn't mention it. He did indeed appear in Curse of the Pink Panther, in one extended scene as a surgically altered Inspector Clouseau. However, in the credits, he is identified as special guest star "Turk Thrust II," an allusion to the pseudonym used by director Bryan Forbes when appearing in A Shot in the Dark. -- Aleal 05:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Pink_Panther_b0c1.html"