Talk:Ratatouille (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ratatouille (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Ratatouille (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: December 23, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Possible sequel

In the special features of the Blu-ray release of this film, the director mentions that one of the characters (a barking dog in the early part of the film) is, "a guest appearance from the movie after this movie... go tell your friends!" I am not sure if this hints at a sequel, or another film, and I didn't want to add this to the article because I have no sources other than me. I thought everyone should know for later so this can be added to the article after the new movie is properly revealed. 216.158.164.2 (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Pixar, never assume anything is more than what it is until an announcement if officially made. IF an announcement is made that is citable, then we'll add the info to the article. It could be a reference to Wall-E, or Bolt, or it could be a reference to Up. in other words - it could be a reference to practically anything... especially as Pixar has been known to include models and textures from past productions in their films. As to there being a sequel, Lasseter and Jobs have both been very strong opponents of sequels in general *unless* there is enough of a story to warrant having one. I wouldn't make anything of a throwaway comment like that at this stage. SpikeJones (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pronounciation in header

Resolved.

I noted that someone added the correct pronunciation of "ratatouille" the dish (emphasis on -tou-) to the header, which, given its non-english heritage, is appropriate. However, based on what is later in the article, is not this film pronounced differently on purpose (emphasis on "ra-"), and thus, should we not use that in the header (still noting that there is this expected difference later?) --Masem 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The pronounciation is the same. It's the marketing use of spelling the pronounciation as "rat-a-too-ee" instead of using the traditional standard prounciation format that is being pointed out. There really is no need for the official pronounciation syntax to be added to the opening paragraph, but if it needs to be added to the paragraph about marketing (along the lines of "... instead of the traditional [insert here]..." then I could see that. SpikeJones 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The creators are not saying this film has a name pronounced differently than the dish, they just sometimes include a phonetic spelling as a marketing device. It's cute, but adopting that marketing device means we're reprinting a marketing statement as fact instead of using the standard way of describing things, which is unencyclopedic.Wikidemo 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, just checking (I've actually never heard the name of the movie stated, only read up on it, so I wanted to make sure )--Masem 02:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brother...

Resolved.

There has been reasonable dispute on whether Emile is older or younger than Remy. Anyone who's seen the movie perhaps heard Emile calling Remy "little brother". There is a book based on the film called "Oh, Brother!", told from Emile's point of view. Remy is said being his "little older brother". With too many sources and different claims, let's please leave it as "Emile, Remy's brother", and skipping the age detail. Rusty5 01:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Remy is the more mature of the two, but not clearly older; calling him "little" could refer to his size. I hope people don't go down the path of a star wars like dissection of the film, book, director's statements, etc., to decide which sources are truly cannonical
they are both young,but the mouse is more serious


I have not seen the flim, but I have played to game and emile is is OLDER brother. thanku —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.254.61 (talk) 07:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for use

A reliable source, so editors can avoid original research. Alientraveller 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller 20:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller 21:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skinner

Anyone notice the chef named Skinner? He was probably named after the psychologist B.F. Skinner, who is famous for doing conditioning experiments with rats.

[edit] Setting?

It's clear that Ratatouille takes place in Paris, but when? When I saw the movie in theaters, I originally thought it took place several decades ago (seemingly revealed by the abundance of noticeably older-model vehicles, phones, etc, the lack of references to high-technology, and the lack of women in the workplace, among other clues). But then I realized that Linguini was wearing high-tops, and later Skinner's lawyer uses DNA testing to verify Linguini's identity. DNA fingerprinting technology has only been in use since the mid-80s, and (although I'm not sure of exactly when high-tops were first sold), the times that they were popular are not consistent with the perceived age of the aforementioned props.

Can someone clarify this, or should the article mention that this movie contains props inaccurate to the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmello (talk • contribs)

It says it's intended to be a romantic vision of Paris. In any case it's timeless fiction. Alientraveller 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It looks kinda like a 1950s version of Paris, but, for one thing, Collettes motorcycle is much more modern than any of the cars. Like the Incredibles, I guess, they like to hint at a time period, but in reality its a fantasy world.--Dudeman5685 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's one thing Disney is good at, it's creating films that last for decades because they aren't tied to any time period. Pixar, too. I think they do this on purpose so that they can re-release periodically and have lots of revenues for a long time. No doubt they avoid any current slang or jargon, technology that will ever become obsolete, etc. 1950s Paris is one of those eternal images. The old woman's TV is 70s or 80s vintage, I think -- definitely not HDTV...remember how you could see the pixels? You could possibly date the kitchen's tools, gadgetry, dishes, and cooking methods as 1990s to present, though. Presumably they decided that DNA testing and high tops are here to stay. This would be an interesting addition to the article if you can find an external source about it, rather than a list of trivia items or original research or speculation Wikidemo 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like high-tops date back to 1917 (see Chuck Taylor All-Stars), but that's beside the point, as I agree they were going for a timeless look. -- Logotu 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To all the enthusiastic editors

Hi. So many people are contributing to this article, and I think it is one of the better articles on Wikipedia for a newly released film. We just got a "B" rating, which is very good for a new Wikipedia article. Thanks for all your contributions. When I read some of these edits, it is clear that many of the editors are children and young adults, film buffs, Disney lovers, or just people who want to express their admiration for such a wonderful film. Sometimes these edits are very helpful, but sometimes they are outside the normal rules and style guidelines for Wikipedia. Please don't take it personally if you add something that later gets removed or modified. I have added as much as anyone here, and most of my stuff gets removed too. Think of it as a group project where we all add our little piece. And if you're one of the serious editors who wants to keep the article in top shape, please realize there are some enthusiastic new Wikipedia editors here so let's be kind and encourage them to learn.

Just so you know, a few things keep popping up that we have to keep removing. These include:

  • Unsourced materials - things you learned by watching the movie or reading about it, but don't link to an article from a neutral source like a newspaper. If you can't back it up, we can't print it here.
  • Trivia, either in a trivia section or in the main article. There is lots of good trivia about this movie, so much that if we include it all it will get very long and the basic facts of the movie will get overwhelmed. Unlike IMDB and some other movie sites, Wikipedia does not encourage trivia sections.
  • Links to your favorite blog, reviewer, or film website. When you promote your own it's considered "spam" linking. Even if it's not yours, here are too many of these to include them all, so we stick to some very basic external links -- trailers, news articles, and the major film sites like IMDB, Rottentomatoes, and Metacritic.
  • Plot details that get too long or aren't really important to tell the story. This film has a very complicated plot, and much of it is just for fun and doesn't need to be told here. We're trying to keep it to 700 words, so if you go into too much detail someone else will probably simplify it.
  • Point of view and opinion. Yes, Skinner is a bad guy, and the food looks delicious! But we have to use serious, objective language because this is an encyclopedia. For a similar reason we can't talk about which movie is the best, or how much money it's going to make. We stick to the facts that we can find in an external source.
  • Plagiarism. Don't copy whole sentences from other websites, please!
  • Kidding around. Yes, it is fun to say "woo woo woo" on the page. But it really doesn't belong and we have to remove it. Wikidemo 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)get

[edit] Trivia section

I'll probably get in trouble for putting it here, but if you just have to talk about trivia, or if you see some that doesn't belong, maybe you can put it here instead of the main page. I'll start off:

  • The music from Pirates of the Carribean plays briefly as Remi is floating down the sewer Wikidemo 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As in most Pixar Movies, Ratatouille contains a reference to a previous film. In this case, Bomb Voyage of The Incredibles appears as an ordinary street mime; at one point, too, one can glimpse the colorful "I" symbol of The Incredibles patterned on Linguine's boxer shorts.
  • The scene where Rémy's father shows him dead rats refers to a famous store in Paris specialized in mice trap where stuffed rats are shown as they are in the film. The store is located 8 rue des Halles in the first district of Paris.--Nicolas.cuissard 07:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wine: Anton Ego ordered Château Cheval Blanc 1947, but Château Lafite Rothschild was served in the film. This is fixed in the DVD. Another bottle was the same Lafite in the film, whereas Château Latour in the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.248.234.29 (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

We can't include every review or blog. To be fair it would be all of the reviews (200+) or nothing. Usually we don't add specific reviews to films, not even Roger Ebert or the New York Times, unless there is a special reason. If a review says something particularly useful to add to the text of the article, it's fine to say that and use the review as a reference. If the review is just another source on the film, it's best not to add it. Here are some great reviews that just don't seem to have a grounding in the text of the article. Wikidemo 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audience Reaction In France

I am curious to know what the French reaction to the film has been, both regular moviegoers and also crtitics. I personally loved the film-- and suspect it will be received well there, but the French sentiment often being different than the American, I was just curious to know.

71.208.230.141 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The movie has been released on august 1 and, well, it seems that the film has been received very well here. Not only by moviegoers, but also by critics. Given the movie is in Paris, I wonder if it's possible to put the french release date in the infobox, even if France is not an English-speaking country, as well as Russia, am I wrong? ^^ 83.199.148.61 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the French audience and critical reaction would be an interesting subject for the English Wikipedia, particularly if there is a good solid source who describes it intelligently. Given all of the political and cultural rivalry displayed towards France by the United States, perhaps two-sided, it is notable that this is one of the first mass-market popular films in a long time that takes an unabashedly positive, even admiring, look at French culture. It could be a positive influence, or perhaps a sign of improving relations.Wikidemo 00:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The last part of Liberation's review criticizes the American point of view of Paris. Pointing out the anachronism between the large presence of Citroën DS (quite rare nowadays) and cell phones. Besides that, Ratatouille is very well rated: 10 papers rated five stars (out of five) and nine rated four stars (none rated below 4 stars), the film is a box-office success with nearly 2 millions spectators on the first week (comparatively "The Simpsons Movie" made 2M spectators in two weeks) . IMHO: as far as the film is for entertainment most french people aren't looking for perfect accuracy in the behavior of the characters or the life in Paris. That could have been *very* different if the film was insisting on stereotypical dishes such as frogs or snails :) --Nicolas.cuissard 08:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

This could easily become a good article. It has many references, but it needs a few more pictures n' stuff. And maybe a brief bit more or characters? CrowstarVaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends! 21:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as the reception section is so small. Alientraveller 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should at least wait until the DVD is released so that any additional development details and a few better shots can be used (beyond those that exist already). We should plan to maintain the article as it is right now, of course, and maybe find a few more critical comments (pro and negative). --Masem 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New plot additions are not good

Okay, one anonymous user (User:71.98.93.103) has added a bunch of extra plot details and removed a bunch of wikinks three times and been reverted three times by two editors (including my latest). The only other edit history from this IP address shows recent minor edits to four other film articles and a clumsy POV edit to a gun-related article here that may not be the same user because it was a long while ago.

We generally encourage constructive edits and collaboration, but everyone has to realize their edits don't always stick because this article is a collaborative process and people might disagree. If someone rejects your edits without an explanation maybe it's okay to restore them. But if people give a good explanation why they reject your edits, you should talk about them rather than being stubborn. When we removed the edits we did give an explanation that it's improper to remove other people's wikilinks and the extra plot details just made the plot longer without adding anything. That wasn't enough for the editor, so I'll give a blow-by-blow.

  1. Inspired by France's recently deceased top Chef, Auguste Gusteau (Brad Garrett), Rémy tries to live the life of a gourmet with his keen sense of smell. -> Rémy is trying to live a life, not live a life with a sense of smell. One does not live with a sense of smell. One lives alone or with others. To say that one lives with a sense of smell makes no logical sense. Moreover, even if you could phrase this properly, the fact that he has a keen sense of smell is not the reason he is trying to live the life of a gourmet. The added phrase has nothing to do with the sentence. It is out of place.
  2. storm drains, cookbook, skylight, janitorial, soup, (remove wikilinks)->They are perfectly good wikilinks
  3. While cleaning, Linguini accidentally spills a pot of soup and attempts to cover up his mistake by adding random ingredients. -> It makes no difference to the plot that he spills the soup while cleaning. Of course his spilling of the soup is accidental. Who spills soup on purpose? Adding that word adds nothing to the sentence.
  4. Upset,Horrified by Linguini's actions, Rémy falls into the kitchen and though desperately trying to escape cannot help but try attempts to fix the ruined soup rather than trying to escape. -> Upset and horrified are similar words; however horrified implies a judgment as to internal mental state, which is unencyclopedic. "..by Linguini's actions" is unnecessary verbiage. The word "upset" comes immediately after a statement that Linguini ruined the soup. It's obvious that's what this sentence refers to. "though desperalely trying to escape" is not an opposite to fixing the soup. You only use thou x, y in a case where x and y are in opposition here, which they aren't. He is not desperately trying to escape while he is fixing the soup. He is not trying to escape at all. He is staying and fixing the soup. There is no backup for a claim that Remi cannot help himself. Who knows if he could have helped himself or not. The figure of speech here is unencylcopedic. He simply feels an urge to fix the soup. The original version simply laid out what happened, he fell through the skylight and fixed the soup rather than trying to escape. The new version uses flowery speech that assigns mental states to a character.
  5. Linguini catches Rémy in the act, just as Skinner catches Linguini. In the confusion, however, some of the soup has beenis taken and served. -> "however" implies an opposition between two statements. But there is no direct conflict between catching in the act and serving soup. Better to simply say it with no unnecessary conjunctions. Taking and serving are two different acts, but the taking of the soup is not the problem, it is that the soup has been served to a customer. No point adding a superfluous verb.
  6. wine, kiss, investigation, dating, TV dinner, scrounging, apologize (removed wikilinks) -> nothing wrong with these wikilinks
  7. scrounging for food -> the connector is not required
  8. Linguini walks in the midst of the raidinto the storage room to apologize to Rémy, only to discover the raid and kicks out all the rats -> the old sentence had problems, which I fixed. However, the fact that it was in the storage room is irrelevant to the plot.
  9. jaded, cooking, courage, roller skates (removed wikilink) -> perfectly good wikilinks
  10. Colette helps RémyWhen asked what he would like that evening, Ego challenges the chefs to prepare whatever they want. Rémy chooses to prepare ratatouille. -> That Ego was asked what he wants, that he challenged the chefs, or that they prepared what they wanted, or that it was Remy's choice are peripheral plot details
  11. and while Colette is initially skeptical, decides to help him anyway.->Collete's cooking despite skepticism is irrelevant to plot.
  12. childhood memories of his mother serving him ratatouille as comfort food. -> that his mother served him ratatouille is not relevant, but it's implied anyway. Saying that he was served something as comfort food is incorrect. He is not comfort food. The serving was not as comfort food. Whether the ratatouille is or is not comfort food is not clearly derived from the plot, and in any event the detail is superfluous.
  13. health inspector, investor, patron (removed wikilinks) -> perfectly fine wikilinks

Okay? Wikilinks are optional, but without a reason it's pushy to remove links added by another person. The additions didn't improve the plot. They involved some extraneous details, things that did not logically fit or were out of place, and the English usage is not up to the level of the rest of the article. We're trying to keep the article to 700 words. The old version was 736 and the one the user keeps restoring is 780. All in all, it makes the article worse. That's why we're reverting. To keep adding the material despite opposition just looks like over-aggressive editing.

-- Wikidemo 07:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious editing by anonymous editor

An anonymous editor who appears to have a dynamic IP address has added these exact same edits five times now without once discussing them. If this happens again I will ask that the page be semi-protected, meaning unavailable for editing by new or anonymous users. I see no other way to stop this nonsense. Wikidemo 06:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is in the block 71.98.*.*, but that's a huge block that WP editors will likely not do much to block (I'm sure it's not the entire 71.98.* block, but enough of it to be too large). Semiprot makes reasonable sense. --Masem 13:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The editor has added the same destructive edits again, now for a sixth time, without any edit summaries, talk, or response. This was generating a content fork as people started editing the degraded version. Afraid we have to semi-protect page to avoid this. Wikidemo 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you sent that user a 3RR notice, and asked for that user to be temporarily blocked? SpikeJones 12:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3RR is for reverts within a 24 hour period, and neither warning nor blocking is practical to do to anonymous user with a dynamic IP address but yes, two IP addresses have been warned and it's clear that he/she got at least one of the warnings because the latest edit came from one of the two IP addresses that was earlier warned.Wikidemo 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modest Mouse reference?

Resolved.

In a scene, I remembered Luigini said ,"For a mouse, you're so modest," to Remy. Any chance of a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.59.66 (talk) 13:54, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

No. SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Render resolution?

Does anyone know of Pixar renders their movies at 2K or 4K resolution? --24.249.108.133 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

they can render it at any resolution, modern digital animation releases are 2K because there ::is no advantage going 4K with fairly simple color range vs photo realism movie fx.
"32mm film is overall 5000x5000:25mpix"
  5776 x 4336 (25.04) - aspect 4:3 (1.33 - normal)
  6032 x 4144 (25.00) - aspect 16:11 (1.45 - widescreen)
  6328 x 3952 (25.01) - aspect 16:10 (1.60 - widescreen)
  6664 x 3752 (25.00) - aspect 16:9 (1.78 - widescreen)
with animation you don't have to render 25mpix to get good quality on 32mm, which was shown with toy story 1 which was almost half 2K Markthemac 02:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

First name, please! Why is everyone calling Alfredo by his last name, Linguini? I believe it is quite silly to refer to him this way. Can we change it to Alfredo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.139 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Game

I put in all this information as i believe it is relevant to the article:

i feel it is justified - if you feel it is too commercial, i have removed the shortcode, but i would appreciate it if you would not revert my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.gwyn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the discussion of the game relevant, entertaining, and useful in providing context - just written like fluff. The version Alientraveller first deleted is the best, not the version Pixelface has been trying to add back in. Pixelface's version is better written of course, but I think it misses the gist of the earlier mention, which gives context to the marketing efforts and the overall reception of the film. The problem is that the tone is not right and it's too long in proportion to the article. It probably deserves 1-2 sentences top, not its own section. Any more detail than that should go in its own article on the game, if that's notable enough to include in Wikipedia. It should be integrated into another section. This is just a matter of balance and proportion. I would go with something like this:
"To coincide with Pixar's theatrical release, THQ Wireless released a mobile game in which users play the part of Linguini who, with Remy's help, must please patrons by preparing gourmet dishes from various cooking stations on his way to becoming head chef.".
-- Wikidemo 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Friend the Rat

Why does Your Friend the Rat redirect here? It's a separate short film, can somebody fix this? Martini833 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an expression, fix it yourself! The old article was blanked and replaced with a redirect because it had almost no content, and is merely a featurette / short film that goes along with this film on the upcoming DVD. You can see a little discussion in the history / talk page. There's no exact rule, it was just done as a matter of editorial discretion. If you want to fix it, you add a sentence here if people think it fits under a section like "DVD" release. Or else, if you think it can stand on its own as an article, reverse the edit by which the redirect was creaqted, and add your own content to the article so it's worth reading. Be sure to review the notability guidline WP:N as it applies to films, probably a separate page. See if it's even capable of being notable given what it is, and if it is capable, make sure you add enough content and a reference or two so that the article shows that it's notable. Wikidemo 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I will but that was very rude!Martini833 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying *I* was being rude, or the deltion? I spent the time to research the matter, answer your question in detail, and offer words of enouragement on what to do? I did'nt have to answer the question, you know. Wikidemo 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Video Section

I changed "DVD" section name to "Home VIdeo Release" again since it's available in Blu-Ray format too. It should not be changed again, Blu-Ray is not the same format as DVD, Blu-Ray is a HD format. Both are home video formats. --T0rek 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding to the article

Well dispite wikipedia's motto "Anyone can edit", it seems that as soon as you try to add some information to this specific article, it gets removed, did someone say power abuse? 87.102.40.189 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, but not every edit is a good one. You have to get used to the fact that it's a group project, and anything you add might get accepted by people and might not. You're also up against some style guidelines Wikipedia has for film articles and other articles in general. This edit you tried to make adds information that the plot does not really need. Everyone wants to add something to the plot section but it's already as long as it can get, probably longer than it should be. The plot is told in chronological order, and starts out saying that Remy is living in the colony with his family. If you put a parenthetical right there at the beginning that Linguini calls him Little Chef, it sticks out. Linguini hasn't been introduced at this point. Nobody is calling him Little Chef. That doesn't happen except in the middle part of the film, and it's just not as important as other things. The plot discussion gives the big events people need to understand what the film is about. The "Little Chef" name is cute and it shows affection (and also a little bit of lack of understanding), but it's not necessary for the plot. If you make a change that people agree with, they will leave it alone. I hope that helps. Wikidemo 11:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rémy & Rémy

Is there a connection between Rémy of this movie, and Pascal Rémy, who wrote a criticism of the Michelin Guides? It just seems too close to be a coincidence. 72.131.11.47 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your original research needs to be cited with a reliable source then. Alientraveller 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfredo Linguini

For the last time, ALFREDO IS HIS FIRST NAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.139 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

When watching a film I must say that I cannot remember every characters full name so therefore I do not expect anyone else to. Please back up everything you say no matter how much you know that you are correct there is a possibility you are not... The joys of an encyclopedia. Rick-Levitt Talk Contribs 20:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "official" site says his name is Alfredo.Goodone121 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Many...

How many stars did this film get? I was always wondering this.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From where do you mean? RT overall ranks as 95% positive among critics. Alientraveller 19:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, I mean as the overall rating. The one where the rating is out of five stars. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alfredo Linguini

WILL YOU STOP REVERTING MY ALFREDO EDITS, ALFREDO IS HIS FIRST NAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.176 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

While true, he is always referred to in the movie as "Linguini" by the other characters - the only point where Alfredo comes up is in the text of the letter written by his mother. Additionally, we have a problem that only 3 of the characters have known first and last names (Linguini, Gusteau, and Ego); all the rest are called by their first or their last name depending on what's given (eg. Chef Skinner). Because there's no way we can be consistent with using all first or all last names, we should go by what the movie clearly has deliniated as the most common way to refer to each character, as well as how it's been taken into reviews and the like. and that means it's Linguini, Gusteau, and Ego (incidentally, all last names, but again, that doesn't mean much). --MASEM 14:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Calling him Alfredo would be obscure, and misrepresent the film. For living humans we almost always use the last name because using the first name is informal, assumes a false intimacy, and tends to belittle the subject. We would most likely follow that convention in a more realistic film. In a more fantasylike film here, perhaps that gets relaxed a bit but nevertheless for characters like Gusteau and Ego the last name seems more appropriate. Definitely for Linguini. That is what everybody calls him.Wikidemo 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO! Didn't ANYBODY watch the movie? Alfredo is clearly his first name! So it would make more sense if we called him that. Is Stewie from Family Guy ever called "Griffin"? NO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.176 (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Pippin is named Peregrin Took, but we don't normally refer to the character as such. Alientraveller 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We do exactly as the film does - introduce him by full name then use his last name from there on. Wikidemo 11:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

His first name's Alfredo, dumbass. so let's call him that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.138.145 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-english

The reversion of this edit [1] with the summary non-english release dates (save for france due to film) not needed needs to be discussed further. I have few questions:

  1. Why is assumed that the film was not an English-language feature film in India?
  2. Why are western countries only featured? WP:CSB

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We are using the guideline from the Films project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Release_dates. This is not meant to be a systematic bias as it is meant to keep the infobox size in check. As this is the English WP, the project guidelines suggest only countries where English is the primary language should be stated; the exception for Ratatouille is that the film came out first in France. --MASEM 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced with the second point in Wikiproject films. I agree that the infobox needs to be kept compact, but including unecessary countries just because English is the only language spoken does raise questions. I'll raise it on the wikiproject =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK DVD

This was a great film. Does anyone know the release date of the DVD in the UK. The article only relates to the USA release which does not meet the standards of WP:FILM. Unisouth 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blu-Ray Disc and DVD Release

The info on easter eggs here is terrible and porbably should be deleted. Just letting the right people know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.146.106 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An idea for a section (needs to be edited to a neutral POV)

==Rating== This film was rated G by [[MPAA]]. But from a certain point of view, this rating can be questioned. When Remy and Emile are seen by the old lady, she tries to shoot them with a shotgun. When Remy is crawling through the wall, he sees a young lady trying to shoot a man with a pistol. This film also has numerous references to wine, and there is even a scene where Skinner intentionally gives Linguini so many glasses of wine that he gets drunk.

--75.85.111.141 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That won't fly even if written well - it's strongly original research. If there are cases where reliable sources questioned the G rating due to these elements, we can use the source and add, but without it, it's not appropriate. --MASEM 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

Okay, this article has a lot of good things going for it, but there are too many fixes needed to pass it at this stage.

  • Big point first: For a film that was (apparently) so critically acclaimed, where are the reviews? The RT and Metacritic ratings are fine to include, but you need to show positive and negative critical reviews as well.
  • The lead, per WP:LEAD, is to short. Try expanding it with mentions of the production and marketing.
  • The plot looks a tad long, but I don't know what could be trimmed, so this isn't a big issue.
  • Why are the cast members listed next to the characters in the plot? That's fine sometimes, but the article has a cast and characters section, so you don't need the cast to be mentioned in the plot as well.
  • Do we know why Pinkava was replaced with Bird?
  • Production could ideally be expanded, but it’s a great section for now so this isn't much of a problem.
  • The paragraph about the first trailer is unsourced, and per the WP:FILMS guidelines, trailers aren’t notable for inclusion anyway. Although it should be okay for now, and the UK trailer stuff is pretty notable I suppose.
  • The box office section should be expanded if possible.
  • There isn't much information in the Reception section, so (even if it is expanded) I'd remove the sub-sections and merge them into one "Reaction” or “Reception" section.
  • And merge awards into said section...
  • The article needs a good copy-editing (but what article doesn't).
  • Particularly in the awards section, some references are in the wrong place. Each time ref 46 has been added with a space after the full stop when it should just be directly after it. Same for ref 42 and ref 41 needs to be after the comma.
  • Refs 31 and 32 need to be properly formatted. Ref 38 has no publisher listed.

As such, I do not think I can pass the article now, but keep up the good work, and you can always re-nominate it, at some future point. Gran2 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] critical reception

Hi - I was coming here from the GA page too and had similar comments regarding the critical reception section. It's incredibly cursory, given that this is what will ultimately drive any long-term notability of the work. Suggest including notes from major sources on the animation etc.; e.g., salon 6/29 on the animation; SJ Mercury on sexism (this issue was written about in a number of sources); NYT is usually a major film review & IIRC there was a good review of "R" in the NYT; any academic discussions would be helpful, although it might be a bit early to get those. --Lquilter (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rémy's Reunion

I just added this paragraph in the plot section.

One night, Rémy and his colony are reunited. At the ensuing party, he surprises his father by saying that he was not going to stay with the colony, but instead continue to live near the humans. In response, Django shows Rémy the storefront of a rodent control business, which is filled with dead rats in traps. Rémy, horrified, does not believe that this is all the future can be, and leaves.

I am aware that this addition makes the plot section longer, and brings the word count to an undesired 946, but that part is very important to the plot, because it is a turning point in the movie. ~The Little Green Man from Mars(My Page)(Where do I live?) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Remy vs Rémy

I'm pretty sure the main rat's name is spelt "Remy." Furthermore, his brother's name is Emile, not "Émile." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.219.194 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From the subtitles, I can conclusively say that Remy and Emile are the English spellings, and Rémy and Émile are the French spellings. Both are correct, but seeing as this is the English article we should probably stick to the English names. --Marshmello 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmello (talk • contribs)