Talk:Beverly Hills Chihuahua/Archive 1

Archive 1

OR Removal

I've taken out the following section: ==Early Reception== * So far, the reception towards the film has been immensly negative, even at points where people were booing the trailer as it played before [[Prince Caspian]].

This, to me, looks like someone putting forth their opinion,or their experience. Unless we have a source saying this, I really don't think it should be in the wiki - it sounds a little like someone reporting that it was booed in their theatre, which is not the most comprehensive of surveys. While i've seen it get bashed in a forum, I really don't think that we can comment on reception at large at this point, only what has happened to be near us - which is not remotely encyclopedic. Anyone wish to speak up for or against the inclusion of this quote? Scanna (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The trailer has been uploaded to several locations on the internet, such as YouTube, which have comments attached. There are even reaction videos to the trailer. There are also some blog entries. So there are definitely references available, even if there aren't any really good ones. But I'm in favor of just waiting for now, as I'm sure there will be many overwhelmingly negative opinions from respected sources in the future. Herorev (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Being that you want to maintain a neutral atmosphere shouldn't the sentence at the end of the opening paragraph mentioning that this will be the greatest movie ever made be removed. I'm assuming that is just a joke anyways.Oni Kimon (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

--75.148.86.118 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This page has been vandalized like all heck; The opening paragraph NPOV about expecting to be one of the greatest films ever made, and the crack about Drew Barrymore being a dog.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.54.236 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That could be because it's one of the worst ideas for a movie of all time and the trailers make it look about as appealing as Gigli. --166.102.104.90 (talk) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't condone the vandalism, but at the same time I cannot disagree with this surge of anti-BHC sentiment. I saw the trailer when I went to see WALL-E (talk about opposite sides of the spectrum), and it indeed looks pretty wretched. Beemer69 ^chitchat 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to protect the page from Vandelism. Super Ranger (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I see no vandalism on this entry. --Fazoozoo (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen an ad for the film, and I seriously doubt I will ever see the film either. This page is on my watchlist though. I will be reverting vandalism when I see it. BananaFiend (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I still have not seen any vandalism on this entry. Perhaps you are thinking of another movie like Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E. --Fazoozoo (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There was just vandalism on 24 August of 2008. Auto-reverted by ClueBot. Numbers were changed, and a character name was changed to "f***face", etc... Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo hoo. How do you know the information provided there WASN'T correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.104.86 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanna know if it's vandalism that someone added Jenna Jameson and Rodney King to the cast list. ChesterG (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Protest Notice

I am removing the sentence "More than 80 educators, students, activists, and members of the Facebook social-network community have vowed to boycott the film's September release throughout the country" in favor of just the sentence noting the potential controversial elements. I have also neutralized to some extent the sentence about the controversy, as it previously used fairly non-neutral language. And I have removed the sentence "This film, being yet another dissapointment to the disney corporation, is predicted to be a box office train-wreck" for similar reasons, in addition to the fact that is isn't verifiable fact. There may be legitimate concerns about the film, but he potential boycott actions of "more than 80" people on Facebook are really not significant enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article about a major motion picture. This is an encyclopedia, not a social forum. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Manuel Noriega

I don't want to suggest that I have some insight into this, but all things considered, it seems highly unlikely that the former Panamanian dictator captured during the U.S invasion of Panama in 1989 would willingly lend his voice- much less be allow to, considering his present incarceration- to a Disney movie. Again, i could be wrong about this... just my $0.02. 200.41.2.220 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Disney has certainly done stranger things. --166.102.104.87 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I strongly disagree with the protection placed on this article. I do not believe it is necessary and, as this movie is released today, will hinder the ability of this article to be improved upon by the four people who will see this movie in theaters. Therefore, I lodge a formal protest against this action and request it be rescinded; there is no reason to have this article unavailable. If you are going to protect a movie article as each movie comes out (i.e. the next Harry Potter movie) then you are going to require a lot of resources, a lot of time, a lot of effort -- all of which would be unnecessary and quite possibly wasted, in my opinion. This is just silly. --DFajrpua (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is even more silly. BMW(drive) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And goodbye. — Satori Son 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally support the protection. This article has been consistantly and blantantly vandalized dozens of times since it was created. Frankly, I wish people would keep their personal issues OFF of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. The protection is required because people keep using Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their personal crusades, rather than what it was created for. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot

The Plot as set out in the article is incorrect; the villain is a Mexico City criminal who steals dogs for illegal dogfights, and he wants to use Chloe to extort a hefty ransom from her cosmetics queen owner (Jamie Lee Curtis); I cannot imagine where the contributor got the idea of a dogfur factory.ScarboroughJoe (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See the IMDB synopsis to confirm the current version as correct, I assume the dogfur factory thing was from a previous edit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014775/synopsis Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Theater Image

An image has been added to the article that showing the film's marquee at a seemingly random theater. I do not feel this image adds any value to this article at all, and removed it, however it keeps getting replaced under the claim that free images can be added to articles without regard for their usefulness. Film articles do not generally include such images as they are not unique, add nothing encyclopedic to the value, and are purely decorative. Per WP:IMAGES: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." This image fails that and should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The image doesn't seem particuarly relevant; what exactly is it suposed to be illustrating, the fact that it was shown in theatres? It's really unnecessary, and I think you're right to remove it. PC78 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I must concur here - just because an image is free doesn't mean that we suddenly drop our editorial standards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. The image addes nothing significant, and doesn't belong in the article simply because it exists and is free to use. If the party responsible for the image cannot come up with a better rationale for the image, and I don't think there is one, then it should remain out of the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture is not simply decorative. First, it is the site of the world premiere of that movie. Second, if you can come up with another movie theatre showing a Disney movie with appearances of two original cast members (dogs) in a pre-show at every screening for two weeks, then the conclusion that it shows only "the fact that it was shown in theatres" would apply, and that would indeed be somewhat lame, but still more interesting than the purely PR poster that the article features at the very top. However, since obviously no one had a closer look at the picture and what was written on the marquee there, I added the information to the text. Now the image illustrates a point in the text, and I hope everyone is happy. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is STILL nothing unique nor relevant about it. All movies premiere at theaters, and your throwing in a forum source does not change what others have said here. So what if the two dogs showed up? Lassie was at all her film premieres too, we don't stick pictures of them in every film article. Did the building burn down or something? No. Its another standard film premiere. The image adds absolutely no value at all to the article. As for the PR poster, it is an identifier of the film based on the Film MoS and consensus that the theatrical release poster is a valid visual identifier of a film. A personal picture showing its debut, even at one "initial" screening is not an identifier, and it is nothing but decoration. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, MOS:FILM focuses on non-free images. Does this image have the proper licensing? If it is not a derivative work, which I feel it might be, then there is more lenience about using a free license image. It matters less whether it's "decorative" or not. Visual aids are welcome to Wikipedia articles when they are freely licensed. With that said, I'm neutral on whether or not the image is worth including. Just sharing my $0.02. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I noted above, per WP:IMAGES: "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be significantly relative to the article's topic." That applies to ALL images, free or not. Just because it is free does not mean that people can flood articles with their personally taken pictures when they do not add any actual encyclopedic value to the article. This image adds absolutely nothing. Do any FA film articles have images of random theatrical openings? Shall I go down and take a picture of the marquee at my local theater and add it as well? What makes this opening "special", unique, and where is it discussed extensively in reliable sources (not some forum posting). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the freely licensed image requires extensive discussion in reliable sources; that's the kind of criteria we reserve for the inclusion of non-free images due to their nature. I think that this needs to be a more consensus-driven discussion about the image's importance. I don't think that the image is completely out of place in the article, and since it is a freely licensed image, I'm not in any major opposition to a visual aid for an article where such images are not always available. I understand that the impact of the image is not so major, though, hence my neutrality. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are so not fun that I'll stop contributing to this article. This is not rocket science, but a movie with talking dogs, for God's sake. By the way, if you think a world premiere of a drama, musical, or movie, is irrelevant, you have no idea about this topc at all and have certainly never seen a book on movie palaces. The good thing about wikipedia usually is that the information needs of different groups of people are honoured: in this case, a. o. Disney shareholders, people interested in visual effects, or movie theater afficionados. Well, not the last, since you chose they are not important enough. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)