Talk:Winnie the Pooh (2011 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk[edit]

Christopher Robin wears a Jewish skull cap in one seen, he's Jewish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.109.3 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Candidate[edit]

It is way too premature to have a page on this film at this moment in time. (See the Film wikiproject for specifics as to when it is appropriate to create a film page). Strongly suggest deleting/redirecting to somewhere else until it is time for this page to exist properly. SpikeJones (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with another article instead ... per WP:FILMS, and more specifically WP:NFF, it's too early for a standalone article. While it's highly unlikely to occur, it is still possible for Disney to delay or otherwise cancel production of this film, and the guidelines for WP:FILMS don't take into consideration a company's prior history for such things (as rightfully they shouldn't). This information really should be a subheading under Winnie the Pooh (Disney) until it's announced. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "too premature" to revert this in January, and it certainly isn't now. The film is in active production - actually, it's half done - and it's on track for release in less than a year. According to WP:FILM:

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."

The referenced interview with Andreas Deja notes that he has begun his work on the film, and the Animation Guild blog (and blogs by noted professionals in a field ARE reliable sources for verification; I read WP:CITE) notes that not only has the film started production, but they have irregular updates on the status of its completion. Meanwhile, there are films for which active production/principal photography has not even begun yet (a sampling: Transformers 3 doesn't start shooting until the summer, The Croods isn't even fully written and storyboarded yet, My Fair Lady (2010 film) is still in development and actually won't be coming until 2012 - and I found all of these in Category:Upcoming films) as well as pictures "on hold" for which no actual film footage has been produced (King of the Elves, The Teen Titans: The Judas Contract) that have articles. Now, I'm no fan of Pooh, but it annoys me when an "encyclopedia" doesn't have consistent standards and accurate information (King of the Elves has been on ice for as long as Pooh has been in production, yet the article sat like the picture was really in production). An encyclopedia should have accurate information and rules should be consistently followed, not bent according to involuntary fanboy/Wikicult consensus. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that, until you found the Variety article, nobody had anything verifiable stating that Elves had been shelved. We had blog posts galore, which isn't adequate enough for inclusion. As other editors and I had pointed out, we needed something more reliable than a blog post to make changes. Now that we have that, let's change it. I don't think any rules are being bent per se; SpikeJones has often noted that articles for the Disney films announced in 2008 (Rapunzel / Tangled, Cars 2, The Bear and the Bow / Brave, etc.) were started too early per WP:FILMS, and the article for Elves would be no exception to that. To me, the question is this: is there really enough information right now to justify a separate Pooh 2011 article instead of a subheading like Pooh#2011 revival that could eventually become the Pooh 2011 article? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the amount of information the important thing or the consistency of following the rules? I think the handful of paragraphs in the article as it currently stands are plenty. There's more verifiable information out there that could be contributed about the similarities and differences in art direction from previous Pooh films, the production processes being used, and the reasons for making the picture in the first place (a. to sell toys, b. b/c the company wants to focus on pre-established brands), but I felt like this was plenty for now and didn't realize there was an unspoken content minimum for a Wikipedia article on a motion picture (especially since there are articles on films made years, decades, and centuries earlier with less content). What other information should be available to this article that currently isn't? The only thing I can think of is an exact release date, which will surely be entered the second it's known.
As for not having a verifiable source that Elves was canceled, when the anons came to the article staying that they'd heard the picture'd been canceled, why did no one go looking at that time for a verifiable source (this is a rhetorical question)? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animators Information[edit]

I wrote to Sandro Cleuzo, who was a Disney animator a few years ago (but has since transferred).

I feel as though he would know who the animators are on this film since he is most likely friends with many of them.

If he is correct, a number of the animators we believe to be working on this film are not... including Cleuzo himself, who at almost any movie site discussing this film is listed as the animator of Owl. He is not the animator of Owl and he clarifies some of the other animators, as well:

"Hey Neal,

There must be a misunderstanding. I am not doing Owl because I am not even at Disney anymore. The Owl character has been done by the great Dale Baer. I have no idea where you got the info about me doing the owl.

I do not know much about the characters that will be brought back. What I know is that Andreas Deja is doing Tigger, Dale Baer is doing the Owl, Eric Goldberg is doing Rabbit, Bruce Smith is doing Piglet, Kanga and Roo and Mark Henn is doing Pooh."

http://inspectorcleuzo.blogspot.com/2010/05/kfp-secrets-of-furious-five.html#comments

Also, I came across these new drawings of Eeyore created for an auction to raise money for an animator with leukemia:

http://www.pres-aid.com/2010/05/eeyore-drawings-by-supervising.html

They were done by Randy Haycock, it says he is the supervising animator of Eeyore.

hhttp://www.pres-aid.com/2010/05/nik-ranieri-watercolormarker.html

Confirmation about Nik Ranieri being the supervising animator of Rabbit and Gopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.216.140 (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those are considered reliable sources. Sandro Cleuzo's blog as a primary source can only be used to the extent that the movie applies to Cleuzo -- in that he has denied involvement. Wikipedia is not for speculation nor rumors. Per our guidelines at WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF and WP:BLP, only those names which have reliable references can be used in this article. This a future film, still in production, in which there can (and often are) many subsequent delays and changes. There is no crushing need to add speculative information here. I've deleted any name which does not have a solid reputable reference. (Note that consensus opinion on Wikipedia is that IMDb is not a reliable source for future films -- please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films#Resources) Please either wait for the film's release, reviews of the finished product or official announcements from the production company. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voices[edit]

Is there a source for the voices listed (besides Jim Cummings, Craig Ferguson, and Tom Kenny)? I couldn't find anything to back these up elsewhere on the internet. -- Mikibacsi1124 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the unsourced names. Please see my comment in the section above for the expanded rationale. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative names in cast and crew[edit]

Wikipedia is not for speculation nor rumors. Per our guidelines at WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF and WP:BLP, only those names which have reliable references can be used in this article. This a future film, still in production, in which there can (and often are) many subsequent delays and changes. There is no crushing need to add speculative information here. I've deleted any name which does not have a solid reputable reference. (Note that consensus opinion on Wikipedia is that IMDb is not a reliable source for future films -- please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films#Resources) Please either wait for the film's release, reviews of the finished product by established journalists or official announcements from the production company. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rated PG?![edit]

I've seen a lot of Pooh films either recieving a G rating or not even being rated, but a PG rating for the new one? That's ridiculous! The film's site says that rating, but no other sites have officially announced the film's rating. So I wonder if they put that rating there for joke. If they did, then I wonder if it will be rated G or PG.

That rating thing on the film's site is probably a joke, mainly as a reference to your said ratings. It probably will turn out to be a G. trainfan01 talk 20:43, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Good news! I just found out the film has just recieved a G rating from the MPAA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.34.1 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had the film been rated PG, that would have been cause for it to appear in the article, along with information as to why this film would have received that rating. Since it is the expected G, the rating really isn't notable, especially since that has meaning only in the United States, and the article is likely to be read by readers around the world. --McDoobAU93 20:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Rotten Tomatoes says 'G' . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.58.95 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Oates and Bud Luckey[edit]

I have just removed their characters (Piglet and Eeyore) from the list. The reference that is provided mentions these actors, but it does not say IF they will be voicing these characters (the other remaining actors mentioned in the reference have their characters mentioned in brackets, except these 2).trainfan01 trainfan01 18:39, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Broad Revisions[edit]

Hey, I've been working on a series of broad revisions for this article that should help bring it up to MOS Film standards. A draft of my revisions can be found here. The film is being released in a month, and I think these edits should help get the page moving in the right direction. A summary of my edits can be found below:

  • Reworked and added sources to introduction paragraph, including information about the plot, the history of the franchise, and the crew behind the film. Also added information about the music and short film with proper citation.
  • Re-wrote plot and added sources.
  • Added cast sources.
  • Complete reconstruction of the Production section.
  • Added supplemental music information and inserted soundtrack template.
  • Sourced marketing section. This section might not be notable enough, so please let me know if you think it should be deleted.

Again, feedback is welcomed. I'll wait to implement these edits because I'm curious what everyone thinks. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the above edits, but continued feedback is encouraged. I decided to delete the Marketing section because it doesn't meet the MOS Film Standards for marketing sections. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Short - Jake and the Neverland Pirates[edit]

I cut some of the information out about the second short, Jake and the Neverland Pirates. This second short does not appear in the US version of the release. Early reviews are from international sources, so that's why you are seeing information about it. Because it doesn't appear in all versions of the release, I think that it deserves less attention. Sound good? --TravisBernard (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the international version, they left out the episode "Cubby's Sunken Treasure".216.30.154.5 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

The page says that reviews have been mostly positive.

Generally, when a movie receives 88% from critics, and 100% from Top Critics (Rotten Tomatoes), it should read 'overwhelmingly positive'. . . right? (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/winnie_the_pooh_2011/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.58.95 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film[edit]

Doesn't this look similar to Eeyore's Tail Tale & Pooh's Grand Adventure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.112.215 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home media[edit]

Hey guys, I noticed that the home media has been updated, but I wanted to propose a few minor tweaks. First the home media is in the wrong part of the article. Typically this is included in the release section, so I was going to move it. Second, I'm going to add a few additional sources to improve longevity. Third, I'd like to add a Wiki link to The Ballad of Nessie. Fourth, I want to rephrase this opening sentence to improve clarity. It makes more sense to list the release format, then the different physical packages. I've seen this format used in a number of different good articles, and I feel that overall it is a stronger form. The first sentence will now read:

The film will be released on Blu-ray, DVD, and Movie Download on October 25, 2011.The release will be produced in three different physical packages: a 1-disc DVD; a 2-disc combo pack (Blu-ray and DVD); and a 3-disc combo pack (Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital Copy).

I realize that some of these edits are minor, but as mentioned earlier on this page, I may have a potential conflict on interest. Any feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot[edit]

The article states this film is a 'reboot'. How can it be classified thus, when everything about it is virtually identical to previous additions to the franchise i.e. animation, design, voicing? --149.254.235.213 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Agreed. There's no evidence this is any variation other than another release in the existing franchise. If an editor produces proof that Disney calls this film a "reboot", then we should certainly include it. Otherwise, it's original thought. Thanks for finding that! --McDoobAU93 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Classics?[edit]

I'm yet to see this on disc with a Disney Classics label, and in terms of labels, Wreck it Ralph is Classics number 51. It's not part of the Classics series as far as I can see and it could be removed from the list and the comment on here that it's an official Disney classic

Box Office[edit]

The current $33 million gross on the infobox is wrong. Box Office Mojo's summary lists $26,692,846 domestic + $6,460,000 international. The problem is that they stopped updating the international total early on. If you click the foriegn tab, you'll see BOM's actually reporting a $19,016,012 international gross. That would be $45,708,858 WW. However, if you look at BOM's international market tracking, it's clear some markets are not being tracked for the full length of the movie's run. Notably, France is only listed for a single weekend. The Numbers lists $50,145,607 WW. 22:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damnedfan1234 (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Winnie the Pooh (2011 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winnie_the_Pooh_(2011_film)&oldid=1210979535"