Talk:Arthur and the Minimoys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Arthur and the Minimoys is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
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, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Japanese seiyu could be a nice add to the cast section

You know, most of the animated film articles have the Japanese voice actors listed , so why don't this does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.6.254 (talk • contribs)

Don't know. Could be because the Japanese release isn't out yet? Angie Y. 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flagrant vandalism

There are little to no mature themes presented in this film. While there is an allusion to absinthe consumption (NOT abuse, it is only drinken once and no one gets 'drunk'), to write that there is use of marijuana, sexual situations, and migrant workers' plight can only be assumed to have been done for the purpose of painting this film in a negative light. I would suggest that this film's entry be monitored for future vandalism

Darqcyde 20:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you like this movie, I just saw it yesterday so the movie is still fresh in my mind. From what I saw it appears that most, if not all, those subjects appear within the film although they are subtly implied or in some cases very obviously hidden or ignored within the greater context of the movie/plot.

The drink they had was not absinthe, it was never mentioned what it was exactly but it was intended to imply marijuana. Hence the appearance of Snoop Dog who has become a figurehead of cannabis culture, and the characters exhale at various times some sort of green smoke (the green smoke of course being an obvious reference to marijuana).

Sexual Situations, I must say that this was so blatantly obvious. The camera shots of this movie were not innocent to say the least. There are countless times where the camera is clearly focused on the princess breasts or on her butt. The instance I can remember is where the kid is going to meet the king, and a crowd has formed around to show the princess attempting to pull the sword out.

Workers Plights is almost a given, since the movie takes place in the Depression era and the kid's parents are forced to seek work in the city.

This, much like most children's movies, are never as innocent as presented - they almost always have sexual and social commentary. JayAlto 5:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, first it takes place in the 1960s, which is as far from the Great Depression as you can get. Second, marijuana smoke is bluish, not green. Third, the original movie was made without Snoop Dogg doing the voice, so any connection in to cannabis of his presence (as specious connection at that) wasn't part of the story as produced. And finally, whatever sexual images you're seeing is only "blatantly obvious" to you. --69.22.254.111 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You have some sort of affinity for this movie, so it appears that you're unwillingly to consider anything that would criticize the movie. Firstly, the movie alludes constantly to the depression besetting the country - hence why the parents are forced to work in the city, as opposed to the rural area that the protagonists appear to be in. Next marijuana is almost always attributed as being green - based upon the colour of herbs/marijuana leaf - the smoke exhaled is like any other smoke, but it's been attached to the colours purple, green and grey (for the most part). Either way, the movie definitely does involve alcohol or some form of drugs.

Regardless, the movie definitely makes several references to sexuality - http://kidstvmovies.about.com/od/arthurandtheinvisibles/fr/Arthurinvis.htm . They failed to also add in the very obvious shots that clearly were intended to sexualize the cartoonish princess character. Doesn't really matter to me, I only saw the English version of the movie and wasn't particularly interested in it - but one of the things that struck me as obvious were the sexual references and the unnecessary addition of Snoop Dogg as one of the voice-overs. JayAlto —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a french film where, Unlike the US, minors can drink alcoholic beverages. Most europeans can not believe the drinking age in the US is 18 years, so Arthur drinking an alcoholic beverages is no issue in europe and in several countries of the world, the funny parts consist in him getting a little drunk withouth realizing. Acording the book they are smoking "roots" made with some aromatic herbal substances (the kinds used for drinking tea), in no way it is suggested it is marihuana. Arthur and Selenia fall in love and marry in the original film, when this was cut, the flirting became sexual, because the romance was ommited. Possibly Besson should had taken this details into account before setting the action in the US. Snoop Doog was the only voice actor that was involved in the capture of the reference materials used for the animation. Besson based the character design and his movementes on Snoop. Nanahuatzin (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and Releases

Having read some reviews like this one "Fun of 'Arthur' kids stuff invisible to grown-ups" at the Sun-Times, I begin to wonder if the US release is substantialy hacked about from that shown in Australia. The reviewer's unanswered questions are almost all answered in the first few minutes of cut of the movie screening in Australia.

Can anyone who's seen it in the US comment on this? Alex Law 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. American reviewers will never give a thumbs-up to a foreign animated movie, especially not a french one. They have Pixar and Dreamworks to protect at all cost. Just consider the Minimoys stands "fully rotten" at 19% (yes one less than 20 percent) on Rotten Tomatoes website. The american-made 2005 "Robots" animation stands at 62%, which is bullshit. That one "Robots" had no story, events did not make any sense, was utterly vulgar and literally toilet humour in the most disgusting sense and generally wasted celluloid. I cannot imagine how a critic could give "fresh" to 2005's Robots and look in the mirror next morning. It is skewed.
Only three constructive US criticism of Minimoys I heard was as follows:
- Bad lip synch. American version is dubbed from french language original and US movie-goers notice moving lips do not match the sound.
- Possibly french sentences are shorter than english ones, so american voice actors have to speak quicker to say the some content, which is irritating. I think it mostly says something about quality of US dubbing industry's textwriters and talent of the the celeb voice actors.
Apparently US critics think movie making in non-english language should be banned worldwide. French, however, are fiercely defensive about their own ornamented language.
- The visual pace of the Minimoys animated movie part is too fast for kid audience (or at least the adult critics who have reviewed it think so).
Difference of US and euro morality. In USA it is OK to blow up one's head with a .357 Magnum close-up in a kid movie but heaven forsake focus the camera on a curvy derriere, even if CGI, not to mention drinking alcoholics.
I haven't yet seen a US critic, which failed to mention the first live-action part was this and that good in Minimoys. Some even went on to praise the family dog. Apparently they are only sour about the animation and I think they are biting on Pixar agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
I am bafled by the reaction of the US critics, in general most of the world critics were positive (thanks to google tranlator i have been reading some). Part of the problems seem to be the cuts made to the film. Most of the cuts were done to eliminate the love story Beetween Arthur and Selenia, but even what it left was called "creepy" by some critics, on the other hand, in spanish speaking countries, the movie was sold partly as a love story. I looks as if the film hit some cultural taboos or something like that... It is an interesting problem, altough maybe it is aoutside the scope of wikipedia . Nanahuatzin 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions about editing and improving the articles only. Quoting Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views". As it says at the top of the page, please respect the talk page guidelines. --Tenebrae 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that. And i start this because i want to expand the section about the critique of the movie. But i still need to clarify my ideas on the subject. There is a very different reaction between us critics ,and the rest of the world. While the Us version tried to hide the love story, in the international scenes was one of the marketing plots. since this may be considerer original reserach, i do not want to put it that way. What my be correct, is recopile sevelr intrnational critiques beside the us language critues. But do not worry, i would not write anything before i am shure of wha i ma doing. I man not new here.. Although sometimes i am a bit overentusiastic. I other section i have started some discusion before puting anything (see aztecs). Nanahuatzin 07:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name confusion

Is the evil wizard's name Maltazard, Malthazard or Malthazar? Because the article uses all three spellings/pronounciations.

No need to answer. I've seen the film and his name's Malthazard.

Anon --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.120 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Book version

Can someone make an article about the book series that this film (and the future sequels) is based on? I have little knowledge of the book. Angie Y. 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any other seguels to this series, I know about the second book, but what about a third and/or fourth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.63.245 (talk • contribs)

Yes there's going to be a sequel called Arthur and the Vengeance of Malthazar and another one the name of which I don't know.

I have already read the third and fourth book (portuguese version). The fourth book is called "Arthur and the Two Worlds War"

[edit] Sequels

IMDB has pages for two alleged sequels coming in 2009 and 2010, here and here. Now I know that IMDB isn't considered a reliable source, so I'm just wondering where this information originally came from and if it's actually true. Esn 10:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes from several interviews with Freddie Highmore himself. And he's confirmed his role in both as well. In fact Wikipedia seems to be the only place out there that's yet to mention the sequels to this film. So yes it's true. Three-Tail 22:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh come on

First it says it's out on DVD on the tenth of April, then it says the fifteenth of April and now it says the fifteenth of MAY! Do, make up your minds. Anon -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.120 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Dvd release

The DVD of the film is coming out in a few days, so shouldn't there be any info on the DVD features? Angie Y. 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invisibles vs Minimoys

The article doesn't explain why Invisibles is used in some places and Minimoys is used in others. I live in England, and oddly enough, on TV adverts they call it 'Arthur and the Invisibles', and show a clip where the word 'Invisibles is used'. We got the DVD from a rental shop, they said 'Minimoys' throughout the film, including the part where 'Invisibles' was used on the advert.

Are there two different English-language versions and can anyone provide any information about the difference in names?--Jcvamp 14:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In an interview with Besson he comented it was the idea of the english language distribuitor, who felt "minimoys" was hard to pronounce... Nanahuatzin 22:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1960?

I was of the impression that the film took place in the 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.247 (talk • contribs)

I saw one of the calendars showing the year 1960.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCMWV1974 (talk • contribs)

In the article when speaking about Arthur's grandmother it says that Arthur's parents are trying to get new jobs during the Great Depression. I can't think of anything to replace it with. --Lord Akria 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PS2 video game version

Isn't there also a PS2 video game on Arthur and the Invisibles? WinterSpw 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malthazar

What happened to the Malthazar article? Please tell me.

Please sign your posts, it helps us know how long you have waited for a reply. Goldbringer 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody tomatoes!!!

How DARE thay say that about this movie, it is a piece of artisic brilliance! and I did'nt think it was that icolating at ALL. UP YURS TOMATOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WOOW!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.38.233 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

The articles Selénia and Betameche are unsourced, and in-universe and should be merged here. They are also about to lose their non-free images. --Jack Merridew 10:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. The articles are based mainly on the film, and mention also some facts of the books. What is the proper way to put the sources?... Now. those articles require a good cleaning... because there are currently three different versions: The original book, the full movie and the Weinsteins edition of the movie... Maybe they should be merged, but I think that would unbalance the current article... Nanahuatzin 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read the "in-universe" article. I will try to fix the articles before merging, there is to much that need to be cut. Nanahuatzin 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting that whatever can be salvaged from the two character articles go in the Main characters section. See the ref syntax used in this page for examples of how to cite sources; {{Cite web}} and Category:Citation templates
fyi, Image:Minimoyscposter4.jpg needs a rationale if it is going to stay.
--Jack Merridew 11:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, i am reading the guidelines, I will try cleanit up and put the apropiated references. ALos i wwill put the rationale of the image. Nanahuatzin 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
When will this merge be taking place?.. WinterSpw (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] language

Just a little confused - is the original version in french or english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.167.133 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The film was done in english, specially for the international market, with the some of the voices recorded before the animation was done, and then dudbed to french. Nanahuatzin (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I hotly disagree with you. Luc Besson has stated that the film is French not American. Angie Y. (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)