Talk:Happy Feet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

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)
Changed it to March of the Penguins, I thought it was just someone trying to sound smart. TinFoil 21:36, 16 December 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)

When I saw the movie, I played close attention to this, and it says Steve Irwin voiced Trev. Tsears

[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.

No, this would just be miming slow motion as a way of mocking the seal. It's certainly not unique to homestarrunner. 12Shark 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[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)

^^^ Seriously? When I saw this movie and I saw a whole bunch of MALE penguins chanting together and singing choir-like... the religious implications were unmistakable, to my mind. Furthermore, the rhythm movement inspired by Mumble is clearly intended to parallel African tribal beats. This movie is not subtle at all, IMHO.



^^^^^ choir like singing is religious ? well the movie did act as an exposition of music styles, and you could imagine it showed the development of the song from the primal roots , but really it showed the adults and then the kids and then the romantic kids becoming adults. The music just followed the changes.

However, STRONG Anti-religion sentiments revealed: Their god is called Gwen( I bet they were going to call him "God" but got talked out of it.) Their preacher is called Moses and preaches fire and brimstone in an Irish accent - an experience any catholic would have had.

Mumble says "Gwen didn't take the fish , so he can't put them back". Thats quite a strong anti-religion argument, when aimed at kids. I would just like it pointed out, because it is rare, totally legal, and totally and directly relevant and on the topic of preserving the environment

The people who said support not having a religion section - well they didn't actually provide an argument, they just added an opionion and acted purely on their own POV. I find deleting things because of your own PoV is far more heinous then publishing your PoV.!

It does allude to the Bible at least once. I remember a quote that went something like, "He giveth and he taketh away," which is pretty much word for word from the Bible. --24.147.103.217 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of religious references in the film. There really needs to be a section on it.

Funny - I never heard any Hebrew or Aramaic spoken in the film. Me thinketh the parodies are droll and meant to jab at organizations. I actually prefer the specific reference to Scottish Presbyterianism, than if all the Penguins lined up for the Kool-aid and threw love-stones at Jim Jones. While we're at it, perhaps there should be an Astronomy Section as we get some lovely space shots; or perhaps a Forrest Gump section, because we get the "feather" hommage. Or better still, a section for the humane treatment of stranded penguins on the Australian Urban landscape. Persoanlly, I would prefer an intelligent discussion on how Happy Feet patterns a Tolkien fantasy, with poignet references that are applicable to most anything you want, a la tarot reading. The road to Faerie is lined with such stuff. edwpat LIJPatrol http://www.dancaster.com/ejw

[edit] Trivia Section

Credit for the film's title should be given to Steve Martin who coined the term happy feet in his stand up act in the 70s. He would shout "happy feet" and do some out of control footwork resembling a tap dance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.93.0.254 (talk) 20:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

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)


Haha, it was a DREAM SEQUENCE. Mumble has no idea who "Dave" is either. The line is said in the same intonation and voice as "Open the pod bay doors, HAL" from 2001, clearly mimmicking it. Whats the meaning ? It was just a in-joke, to have a reference that the target adult audience would recognise , at least. Maybe the similarity is that Mumble is totally controlled by a the zookeepers, and going for a swim would end the protest. His dream reflects his situation - he is feeling the urge to swim but , but its deadly to his morale (he is protesting ?It is his protest that marks him as the individual and only when the crowd is looking at him on his own will they learn hear his message .. the protest is his only means of communication , or method to ensure that mankind learns to translate his talking, So swimming with the rest is like opening the pod bay door for Dave .. deadly to success of their mission.

You are not meant to assume Mumble has seen 2001...

Its just an "intrigue" to add to the movie .. why ? because they could add such an intrigue. ( Its like the movie with the reference "No Stairways", but the song playing is a top selling Queen track ! They didnt change the instruction to "No Bohemians" to make it clear to the audience that Led Zeppelin wouldnt let them use their music for just 4 seconds ! hence, an intrigue .. The whole 4 seconds makes no link back to the movie, unlike this odd reference...)

[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)


IF christians wish to affirm that the movie shows up how silly they are, then let them speak out !

contraversy? it's a movie about penguins! no ofence, but i think that since every other page on this site has enough contraversy, who cares? and how did the movie ofend christens? i'm christien, and it's my faveorite film that came out last year!

The reason you weren't offended is because your mind is like a cork on an ocean of thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.62.67 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (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)

The leopard seal Florance is my favorite character. 24.60.163.16 08:48, 27 December 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)
I live in Venezuela and I saw the subtitled version of Happy Feet. Their father, and everyone in the colony always calls it "Mumble", not "mambo". But it is obvious that the name "Mumble" was choosen by the writers for their resemblance with the word "mambo", and that was used in the "Boogie Wonderland" dancing sequence. --Lubrio 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have seen this movie 3 times (it is still in theaters where I live, which is Southern California), the first two times I saw it was in the normal way, without subtitles and it sounds like they were saying Mumble, so i went back a third time to see what the captions say, and the captions call him by Mumble. Tsears
I've got some input to add here. At the begining, when Mumble starts to hatch and runs away, Gloria chases after him laughing and saying," Come back here Mr. Mumble". Morice tries to stop her but Memphis interjects,"Oh, she can can him what ever she wants...Oh little Mumble.." etc. The reason it sounds like he's saying Mambo, however, is because of the thick Tennesse accent given to Memphis(which tends to lean heavy on vowels). During Boogie Wonderland, before the drum break, Mumble says,"oh no, no it's mambo, oh," Because Gloria is saying "Mumble". Mumble is implying that she has got the lyrics to the song mixed up with "mambo". But Gloria says," Uh, uh, baby, it's Mumble." Indicating that that is in fact what everyone was saying. Mambo is a word not only used in Boogie Wonderland, but in John Powells "Story of Mumble". All of the music in this movie is inter-related. Every song in this movie has a piece of another song in the movie in it. It keeps the mood constant and holds on to a common idea musicly. As to why Mumble is his name, 2 points need to be viewed. One, it makes perfect sense to name the tone-def penguin 'Mumble'. Another, a valid reason that Memphis would name him Mumble is the fact of the sheer relief felt by Memphis of the egg EVEN HATCHING. All fathers know that relief. Memphis doesn't care what his son's name is, he's happy to even have a son period. But this is all just food for thought. I've seen the movie roughly 35 times(Because i work in a theater) and everytime i watch it something new jumps out at me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.13.254.207 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2007 (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?


The reason for the missing six-pack rings is, much like the rest of the teaser is missing certain backgrounds and some character animations are different, that the footage was likely unfinished at that point. As far as Robin Williams not voicing Lovelace in the trailer, are you sure it wasn't just a different take? 'Cause, it sounded like him to me. Perhaps, deeper - but, well. You'd also have to ask why they'd do so. It doesn't really affect the content of the film itself. As for the trailers, that seemed to be mainly a problem presented only in the American trailers, where it was played up early on as something akin to a Pixar film. Overseas, and in the international trailer, the trailers were...better, to say the least.

71.53.85.163 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[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)

Depressing right wing propaganda as per usual from Fox News, I fail to see how this is valid for the Talk Page though.Revrant 06:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The political reactions about Happy Feet are, at least, interesting. I don't understand why someone removed the link to the Cavuto's video , and a responde from thinkprogress. Please put it back. --Lubrio 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medved Edits

I noticed that the once per day removal and reversion of the Medved review has occured. I think this seesaw should go to a higher judge - the one in charge of book burnings and clock slaughter. In the meanwhile, the seesaw gives many a furtive reflection back to our childhood - to our sandbox days. Keep up the floor show and this will cease to be an encylopedia and rise more to the level of a pissing contest. I go for volume, not distance. That's where my money is. edwpat

Question: Will someone be adding and subtracting the Medved review on the Happy Feet pages for the next 30 months? Will it be a legacy left to kith and kin in last wills and testaments? Frankly, I find it amusing that people can't come to some compromise on this issue. I think one of the Wiki-gurus should report this one up, so the WikiGods can place bets on the outcome, 'cause frankly, the world turns on the results? I hear Medved himself has written to the Great Gwen to preserve his mark forever in the wind, but every night the aliens steal his words away. Thank you for keeping the entire Elijah Wood world of Fandom amused. While this review spins like a banana in a tree, LIJ laughs all the way to the bank. edwpat

[edit] Should Steve Irwin be included as a minor character?

I know it was an extreemly minor role (Trev) but it is an interesting footnote to the movie. --Calan 13:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about my favorite Character???

Being Florance the leopard seal, with the sharp pointy teeth? Doesn't she have a name and voicing actor? 24.60.163.16 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] baby mumble

I think that someone should who baby mumble is acted by. I don't actually know so I can't do it myself. Also a few characters are missing like the singing teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.200.187 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Added both song teachers, Miss Viola and Mrs. Astrakhan. -Erimgard

[edit] Edits by 75.73.35.70

On 23:42 3 January 2007, 75.73.35.70 wrote: "It's not censorship - it's an inaccurate, poorly-written review that is not up to Wiki's standards. Medved gets swaths of film details incorrect - very bad form."

Let's examine these charges separately.

"It's not censorship.." Yes it is. Moreover, now you are engaging in it.

"..inaccurate.." If there were inaccuracies in his review, you would have (or should have) cited them.

"..poorly-written.." Given that Medved is a Yale graduate, it is highly unlikely that he would write poorly.

"..Medved gets swaths of film details incorrect.." See above RE: "..inaccurate.."

But the most important thing regarding this matter is that 75.73.35.70 wants to supress information rather than making information available. And that is never up to "..Wiki's standards."

72.82.178.223 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue is discussed in the above Medved review thread. It's better you address it there. -- Annie D 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a Yale grad in no way protects against poor writing style. The bellman 06:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEMI-PROTECTION

The article has been semi-protected because of constant edit-warring over the Medved review. Cbrown1023 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you CBrown. But what about the daily pool the world had going on the ultimate nunber of times a paragraph could be spun around? (Only kidding). It's a shame that the compromises couldn't be reached as the POV's were too unmitigated to lie down sheep and lion. edwpat.

[edit] I want to understand the Mevdev remotion... ALSO: please correct Warren Coleman

In first place, I also think that the Mevdev's review is partialized and very stuped. But that is my personal opinion, and I recognize that many people agrees with the Mevdev's writtings. So I can't understand why someone removed the reference to their article, and to the opinions from Fox News' Cavuto, and to the responses from ThinkProgress... also, someone erased all the "Political reactions" section. It's obvious that the film have an important political message about our planet and the mankin' effects against the ecology, and the left- and right-wind politicans has reacted about this. Why hide this? Wikipedia must keep a neutral POV, and we can keep it showing the reactions from all the sectors.

Also, please someone corrects the writting credits. "Warren Coleman" links to an opera singer, dead in 1968. The writer of Happy Feet is another "Warren Coleman" (an actor and director) with the same name.

--Lubrio 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Neutral

This article is absurd. I went to see this movie yesterday with my 4-year-old son yesterday. It was a fairly standard kiddy cartoon until the last half an hour, when it went into a environmental lecture which frankly spoiled my enjoyment of the movie. I came home and did a search on the internet and found that there were plenty of others who felt the same way.

So why does the article not mention it? It seems that User:Edwpat is removing all mention of it. I am not sure whether he has seen the movie or not, but I have, and the fact that the article contains zero mentions of 'environment', 'green' or anything else like it is just ridiculous. Most kiddy cartoons do not get criticised on national TV. The fact that it has been is noteworthy. In my edit, reverted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_Feet&diff=99013223&oldid=99001019 I included a quote from the director:

"According to the director, George Miller, the environmental message was not a major part of the original script, but his experiences of global warming in Australia - he said "In Australia, we're very, very aware of the ozone hole," he says, "and Antarctica is literally the canary in the coal mine for this stuff. So it sort of had to go in that direction." - inspired him to make the movie a far more environmental one. He said, "You can't tell a story about Antarctica and the penguins without giving that dimension." [8] "

So if the director himself SAYS that it's a movie with an environmental message, why is it no in the article here?

I realise that those who are removing the mentions of the criticism think that the critics are right-wing idiots, 'bad' film critics, and that the review is "a poor-quality review with several egregious errors", and that the criticisms are a load of rubbish, but this is rather missing the point. Wikipedia has an article on Nazism, not withstanding that Nazism is a poor-quality ideology founded on egregious errors. The notability is in the fact that a number of notable people have made these criticisms. It is not appropriate to make judgements as to the value of these criticisms, but rather to report them in accordance with their notability.

Nssdfdsfds 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it not because it was untrue or absurd. In fact, it was point on and well written. Unfortunately, it was placed as a Critics review - wrong place. I know better than to mess with the Medved review, for example - since that was subject to a rather childish paragraphitic war, but as one of the keepers of the Elijah Wood material on Wikipedia, I am vigilent. While the last half hour may have ruined the film for you, it might have augmented the pleasure of many other patrons. Wikipedia is an archive and the fact that a film has avowed environmental and even encouragements for the youth of this world to be non-conformists is fine to state for the record and within the confines of the opening material; however, reaction to Miller's stted purpose leans toward the POV. As a reviwer (in fact a reviewer of LIJ films) I learned early that any POV expression on Wikipedia will be expurged by the Wikicitizenry. I had reams of material erased in a flash (literally hours of work); therefore, as I now understand and embrace the purpose of Wikipedia, I let no OV left stading in my chosen watchlist. The Happy Feet discussion was among the most inane stuff I've seen happen here so far - the true exercise of democracy at its worse - a strong case for the Return of the King. If you wish to craft the materials without a POV and succinctly slip them into the proper zone, it might pass. As for the article being "crap" - well, I think its standard Wiki standards. A bit prone to oligarchic control and without a doubt, not intended to give conservative parents a heads up that the thought police were busy in Happy Feet's script or that it isn't really a Kiddie film (whatever the hell that means). My own POV on the matter has nothing to do with it. Elijah doesn't pay me to sanitize his art. He really doesn't give a flying Wallenda what's on Wikipedia. That's why we watch for him. edwpat

It's not about giving conservative parents a warning about what's on the film. It's about a significant controversy, entirely outside of my own opinions, that has been discussed on CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, et al but yet is being expurgated from what is supposed to be an encylopedic article here.
In any case your discussion of the paragraph being POV is absurd, as the section is titled "Critical Reviews". A critic's review is an OPINION by definition. So to say that my précis of the thoughts of Medved and the others I quoted are any more or less POV than anything else there is silly, because if you have a section on people's thoughts on the film (which we do for this article), then without opinions there will just be a big empty space. Nssdfdsfds 23:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this. There IS a politican controversy in Happy Feet, and Wikipedia should talk about the controversy WITHOUT giving support to any of the parts. --Lubrio 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Put it back then. Put in on the slopes of Mount Ivy. Put it on the back of the film's $200 million bank roll. But there's a Wikipedia notion that OPNIONS should not be posted - and Critic's reviews are in a gray area. I've got better smelt to eat. Go in peace. edwpat

I created a different section: Environmental Message Notes - and rewrote the contribution to reflect Wikipedian standards and grammar (Strunk & White). edwpat

Thanks you so much, it is informative and balanced. --Lubrio 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS EDITING BLOCKED?

[edit] Environmental message

This message, and the fact that the film's trailers and promotions do not mention the "green" dimension to the movie, has led to criticism from conservative reviewers for what they see as propaganda, which could in fact be the plot-twist that caps the storyline, films not generally revealing their ending in trailers. Filming a movie that has an environmental message aimed at children has provoked some controversy, although it might be overly emphatic. Critics of the film include Michael Medved [21], Neil Cavuto [22], and Glenn Beck [23].

I don't think this is particularly balanced. There is a paragraph where it is said that there is an environmental message, then there is this paragraph where a few people are cited as being upset about the environmental message in the movie. Where are the (what I would expect to be vast majority of) people who are actually happy for a mild environmental message to be in a kids movie? By only picking three right-wing conservative religious Americans for their views on the environmental message we are placing undue weight on a minority opinion. Also "critics" is used incorrectly, because critics include positive and negative critics. Sad mouse 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, in this article the environmental message was the reason why Steve Irwin signed up: http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21016039-5006023,00.html This article in Nature includes the views of those who think an environmental view is an excellent idea to teach our kids: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061218/full/444978a.html This article directly relates Happy Feet to real conservation of penguins: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2097767.ece Here Millar dismisses Cavuto's opinion: http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/new-cold-front-in-culture-wars/2006/12/15/1166162320893.html

And so on and so on, in fact it seems like whoever wrote this section found the only three people in the world who didn't like the environmental message, how is that balanced? Sad mouse 17:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is how I have rewritten the section: While most critics have accepted or even applauded the environmental component to the storyline [21], several self-described conservative critics, including Michael Medved [22], Neil Cavuto [23], and Glenn Beck [24], have been critical of the environmental message, which they call "green" propaganda.

I know the conservatives will be annoyed at not being exclusively cited, but this is a more balanced paragraph, since it reflects the general consensus of public opinion, rather than citing only right=wing conservative religious Americans. Sad mouse 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sad Mouse, I did not write the original and am not sure still whether the section is necessary, but I did edit the stuff that was there to ameliorate it with Wikipeia's general guidelines and tried to effect a compromise. This film had the ability to bring the worst out in some people, and I was just sick of the add-delete-add-delete-add-delete rotie. It was so childish. I just hope that Medved doesn;t get a chance to review my wet gay dreams. I'm sure he'd boil me in oil and march me into an over. edwpat


[edit] Criticism by Animation Community

I've added a paragraph about the criticism of the film from within the animation community, which has been widespread: I've linked a couple of the most prominent. Jerry Beck and Michael Barrier are two of the most respected writers on animation, so their view seemed notable. Not quite sure, however, the best way to slip this into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinephobia (talk • contribs) 06:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Music and terminology

There was a fair bit of original score music that had been excluded from the soundtrack. And I think that the term "backslider" (the word Memphis uses to describe how he used to be) is a reference to how penguins slide on their bellies and the slide on their would be to go against the tide. That's just what I think (someone's probably figured this out but you got a six week headstart and I've been to lazy to put it up here).

[edit] No plot?

This seems to be the only article on a film that doesn't offer a plot summary! 200.44.7.91 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was a plot summary somewhere, but the flurry and tug of war over this one article has been amazingly childish and in the back and forth, the catapulting and siegework, the plot was irradicated. It's a touchy subject, ths animated film about Penguins. Tose who love it will lay down their eggs for it. Those who find it offensive, huff and puff and try to blow their house down. I am a major Elijah Wood fan (Happy Birthday BTW LIJ), and have tried to mediate both sides to maintain the integirty of a complete suite of artciles on Elijah's 37 films. It ain't been easy.You are are welvcome to craft a plot summary, but be warned, the gutter snipes will impugn you every word. Good luck. Ed Patterson edwpat

I attempted to restore it. There is no reason what-so-ever for it not to exist. Even if it's too long, it can be shortened. Although with the current state of editing this article is going through I doubt it will last long. Blue Phoenix 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have a job writing a plot summery, this film didn't have a plot! 84.64.231.230 20:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Release?

I can't find any mention of this anywhere, and maybe I'm just not searching right, but has the DVD release been announced? As far as the date, and such like that. --Serow 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

March 27th is the scheduled date. edwpat

I'd like to believe that, but could you give a source? Teak the Kiwi 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Got that from some source on A&F. I'll send out a feeler for a recite. In the meanwhile, you can be alerted on Amazone http://www.amazon.com/Happy-Feet/dp/B00005JPCD/sr=8-2/qid=1170271313/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-5470195-5024404?ie=UTF8&s=dvd edwpat Visit Elijah Wood: Performer for our Times http://www.dancaster.com/ejw

[edit] Please do not list all awards on the lead sentence

It is enough to state Happy Feet as an award-winning film. If the reader wants to look up all the awards, they can go to the awards section. Berserkerz Crit 18:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species of penguins

Does anyone think that the article needs a section that lists the species of penguins in the movie? Starting List: Emperor, Adélie, Rockhopper, Magellanic/ other Spheniscus species {I think it was this species (Magellanic) that told Mumble that he was in heaven once he reached the zoo},?,?,?. Teak the Kiwi 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just wanted to leave my comment...

I personally don't beleive that the egg being dropped has any relevance with 'Mumble' being "tone deaf". I would also like to say that the definition for 'Tone Deaf' does not accuratly define Mumbles' disability to singing. Its a small chance that it is a development error, but then again there is no such thing as being perfect.

There have been many kids movies made simply to display the importance of being differnt and showing personality. Including relevence to the "Holy Bible" and God "has a plan for everyone, and everyone is born with a purpose..." and so on and so forth...

In the end it just goes to show us the idea of caring on supersticious behaviours is wrong; if we have no answer to something that we don't understand, we should not judge others... and the old penguin is a perfect example of someone who is not open to new ideas, and tries to attack 'Mumble', speculating that in his mis judgement, he has led the enemy to where they are. We could also imagine a civilisation taking this as an attack on the society, and perhaps Mumble could have been stoned to dealth or something for having an idea and currage to standup and fight.

Another strong point that makes this is a perfect kids movie is not to attack on the political bias of it, but mearly having the currage to fight for what you believe in!

We should almost relate this article to a number of documentations that have been recently developed to show the struggle that penguins endure with the winter seasons. Daemondevel 17:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Good, good, good, er? I'm not sure about the last paragraph, there's a lot of difference between real penguins and animated, tap-dancing penguins. Teak the Kiwi 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Way / A mi manera

It's really a trivia minor detail in an already long article, but I think it may be good to point out that the My Way version that the amigos sing is an imitation of the Gypsy Kings version (a standard of theirs). Nazroon 07:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article maintenance

A few things:

  • The article's too long overall.
  • The soundtracks should be moved to their own pages.
  • Trivia sections should not exist. Relevant trivia can be moved to other sections and other pages.

I don't have time to do everything now, but this is just my opinion on the matter for anyone who agrees and would like to get things underway. Blue Phoenix 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and split off the soundtrack info. I agree there's a good bit of superfluous fluff in this article overall; I'm planning on building character pages to flesh out the "stars" with their own article(s) and take them out of the main film entry. Hence, take the trivia with them (I hope). ;-P --Uthabiti 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Christian Message

Looking from a neutral perspective, why can the environmental analysis be given clout, while the anti-Christian message is shot down immediately. Isn't the movie itself or someone's analysis of it a good enough source? If it had a pro-Christian message, would there be a section for this? - Joey 10:57PM April 4, 2007

The film speaks out against conformism, to which many religions, including some Christian sects depend upon for existance. That the "Old Ones" send shivers to some organizaed Christians, should not be surprising, but it is more "wearing the shoe that fits" as opposed to an Anti-Christian message. Most Christians wold find the spirit of the film affirming with wholesome messages. However, great films, and especially great fantasies rely on "applicability" for longevity. edwpat LIJPatrol

I think the name 'Noah' narrows it to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Let's not fool ourselves. And the soundtrack and jokes aren't entirely wholesome. I watched it with a group of children in my neighborhood who my neighbor babysits, and I had to talk around the many sexual innuendos in the movie. - Joey 12:12 AM April 5, 2007

Well, being Gay and in some Pseudo-Christian cricles, the Anti-Christ, I guess I'm the wrong person to comment on that, but Noah was a good choice of names for a film about animals locked away on an ark-like ice flow. Clever and from one of the great collections of literature in history - The Old Testament. edwpat

Personally, I thought the film wasn't anti-Christian or anti-religious but anti-narrow-minded. I mean, you actually *see* the "Great Guin" in the night scene, which was fairly inspiring. The line about the great guin not taking the fish and not being the one to give them back didn't seem atheistic, but merely pragmatic, i.e. the great guin helps those who help themselves. 203.221.19.222 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Alazraqui

I think it should be mentioned that Carlos Alazraqui (Néstor) is the only actor who doesn't do his own singing, but I'm not sure where to put that. Néstor sings "Leader of the Pack", and it's someone else, not Alazraqui, who does the vocals for it. I forget who. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.137.58 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Movie song credits

This movie has dozens of songs. The tiny credits at the end of the movie are illegible. Where is this information available?-69.87.193.144 00:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not natural

This movie is a cute musical cartoon. Period. That's about it... It uses the latest in special effects, but the animal movement/dancing/physics is sloppy, and the connection to the realities of these animals and nature is rather loose, at best. Any connection to "green environmentalism" is tenuous. Humans are supposed to be threatening the antarctic, by taking all the fish -- but aside from that plot background, humans are not much in the movie (they do appear at the end). There is nothing about climate change.-69.87.203.186 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article for The Amigos

Now that there's an article for Mumble and an article for Gloria, the next step is one for the Amigos, with each of the five having their own section. I think it's necessary at this point. Each section would give that Amigo's voice actor, how to tell them apart from the others, and anything notable that they do. I'll write a bit of info:

Ramón, voiced by Robin Williams - shortest Amigo, with red-brown crest, unspoken leader of the group, sings "A mi manera"

Néstor, voiced by Carlos Alazraqui, singing voice by Dan Navarro - tallest Amigo, with a crest resembling that of a cardinal, sings "Leader of the Pack"

Raul, voiced by Lombardo Boyar - no crest, white spot on the back of his head, raps a verse of "Boogie Wonderland"

Rinaldo, voiced by Jeff Garcia - flat black crest, suggests that Mumble torture Lovelace by singing

Lombardo, voiced by Johnny Sanchez III - curly black crest, wonders if the elephant seals are penguin-eaters

I've been hanging around for a couple of weeks waiting for that Amigos article to come and it hasn't... so, I'd highly recommend putting it up. Oh, and maybe put some articles for Lovelace and perhaps Memphis and Norma Jean.

[edit] Well done!

Despite all the other comments, the article is great. Go the dancing penguins!--Esmerelda Querida 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama Reference

The fact that Lovelace has a sing-pack ring around his neck does not in any way allude to Futurama. In the episode mentioned, Fry had a six-pack ring around his neck that proceeded to choke him as a result of digging through garbage. The whole six-pack ring idea is based off the fact that many aquatic creatures get caught in them when they are not properly disposed of, which also involves cutting each of the rings. Kotsu 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual References

Should it be included?

yeyosmoka21

listen there is no such thing for this movie!! lol


wrong -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCfK9oX0is

  • wait for the last one....Its pretty obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.228.153 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Film's Title

Credit for the film's title should be given to Steve Martin who coined the term happy feet in his stand up act in the 70s. He would shout "happy feet" and do some out of control footwork resembling a tap dance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.93.0.254 (talk) 20:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Not really. "Happy Feet" is a term of endearment among tap dancers that originated probably sometime in the 1940's, or around there. Martin himself is something of an establish tap-dancer, so it's likely he knew of the term beforehand.

71.53.85.163 (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References section

All of these "striking similarities" to other stories need to go, unless a reference for them can be found. Just because you see a similarity doesn't mean your original research belongs in Wikipedia. —johndburger 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll remove the section and merge the 1 item with a reliable source into the rest of the article. It'll all still be available in the history if somebody wants to dig up sources. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, way to be bold! Much better. —johndburger 13:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fake sequel

Editors—there have been repeated attempts to add information about a supposed sequel, usually called something like Happy Feet 2: Kung Fu Polar. FYI, there appears to be no substance to this at all. —johndburger 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The sequel is a hoax. The IPs that are doing this have a history of adding hoax info to multiple articles. IPs are dynamic so just have to catch them at it and revert. --NrDg 03:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering

For an essay I'm writing, exploring the different uses of Campbell's formula in Miller's films, if anybody was struck by how it worked here - in the religious context of the film, which is given far more depth than a lot of people seem to realize. Much like in "Beyond Thunderdome," this resembles greatly a 'messiah/prophet' story, as a couple of reviewers (myself included, on my blog) have noted. This is foreshadowed several times I thought, during his first dance scene with Mrs. Astrakhan at the beginning of the film in relation to his time at the zoo. The entire film is given a gospel and choir soundtrack to kind of accentuate that theme - put to great use especially during the aforementioned zoo scene - on the film's site, Mumble's bio lists him as a Truth Seeker, which is the definition of 'prophet.' Of course, this is just one interpretation, but what do you guys think? While it's not explicitly stated, there are several other cues as well - Lovelace' "I'm gonna be tellin' yo' story, Happy Feet, long after you's dead and gone," among others.

Of course, I know I'm not being extremely eloquent, but what do you guys think? 76.0.78.233 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)