Talk:Despicable Me (film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kendallgriffin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources to be used

Please populate this when possible and use for article.

• Production notes for Despicable Me Universal Pictures.
• [1]

Facebook Plot Information

Saw this at Facebook and I'm hoping that this will be reliable information. Outline:In a happy suburban neighborhood surrounded by white picket fences with flowering rose bushes, sits a black house with a dead lawn. Unbeknownst to the neighbors, hidden beneath this home is a vast secret hideout. Surrounded by a small army of minions, we discover Gru (voiced by Steve Carell), planning the biggest heist in the history of the world. He is going to steal the moon (Yes, the moon!) in Universal’s new 3-D CGI feature, Despicable Me.

Gru delights in all things wicked. Armed with his arsenal of shrink rays, freeze rays, and battle-ready vehicles for land and air, he vanquishes all who stand in his way. Until the day he encounters the immense will of three little orphaned girls who look at him and see something that no one else has ever seen: a potential Dad.

The world’s greatest villain has just met his greatest challenge: three little girls named Margo, Edith and Agnes. www.despicable.me minespatch 1:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.164.103 (talk)

That's the official plot summary from the website. 17.456.759.754.862.8556.76.110.155.87 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Trailer?

When I saw Where The Wild Things Are, there was not a trailer for "Despicable Me." Well, at least not a second trailer... Was it with some screenings and not with others? --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• As a movie theater employee who occasional has to spend whole shift selling refreshments during the trailers of various movies, I can tell you for a fact that different showings of different movies have different trailers. Specifically, each print has its own set of trailers that show during each showing of that print. Ruby 1x2 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw the first one when I was watching Land of The Lost.--Daisy13103 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New Trailer

There's a new trailer out, with new plot information. Ruby 1x2 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Character Designs

The lead characters Gru and Vector bear a striking resemblance to Microsoft supremos Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates. Is this deliberate? Mrstonky (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And all the tech Vector uses bear a strong resemblance to Apple's products. Also, Mr. Perkins looks exactly like Pointy-haired_Boss from Dilbert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.42.114 (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have taken their character design from Dr Who Tom Baker years: http://sven.signull.com/~mikes/DrWho-DisMe.png --Mike Spenard (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Box office

I understand how (you) User:Active Banana are trying to follow the rules but too much has been removed from the Box Office, in trying to avoid editors POV and and reduce hyperbole there is insufficient perspective and context of any kind.

The figures need some adjectives to explain to normal readers that a 42% drop is "respectable" or "only". Without some description readers not already familiar with how much a film would normally drop cannot know if that is a significant drop or about the normal level of a drop, when in fact it is a strong or respectable performance to only drop that much when other films drop by far more.

This change is particularly confusing since if you look at the edit with the summary only is POV commentary only a few edits earlier User:Active Banana changed the wording from respectable to 'only'.

The referenced article says (and as I said in my edit summary) Despicable Me Dominates. I thought success was a fair paraphrase of that. If you think a different wording is more appropriate please do find something to express that or if necessary use a direct quote, but I try to paraphrase and simplify rather than using direct quotes.

The whole reason the Box Office Mojo news articles are referenced and not just the figures on the main box office mojo page for Despicable Me is so that editors can provide more context without it being their own WP:OR or WP:POV because it is acceptable to include the point-of-view presented by the article. -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ASF we provide sourced facts and let the reader determine their opinion. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

and to clarify [2] was a lazy edit on my part - I was only looking at the fact that the IP had inserted the inappropriate "hugely successful" commentary and just reverted the whole thing rather than removing content that was not appropriate in either the original or the IP version. I later removed the "only" [3] that Horkana mentions me inserting. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving only the raw numbers with so little context fails the fundamental principle of improving the article and informing readers. It is a lot harder to provide adequate perspective than lazily removing any and all points of view even that the news article were put there to support.

In practical terms the first news article ("Despicable Me Dominates") is no longer needed to support the intro (and technically the lead doesn't need to repeat anything properly referenced in the main article). Also the second news article is not really used either, the bare listings of weekend totals off the main Despicable Me coves it. If other editors agree with User:Active Banana then there's not much point using more than the one link to Box Office Mojo.

I'll wait for 3rd party opinions before I do any further work on that section again. -- Horkana (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The "placing in context" HAS to be done by and attributed to the third party source. "X movie grossed Y in its first week which BOM called a "weak showing" compared to the previous animated 3D movies." Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

After the girls are taken back to the orphanage, Gru awakes in his bed and after flipping back the blanket, he gets frightened by the sight of the toy head (for hairdressing). Is this a reference to the film "The Godfather" where a film producer founds the severed head of his horse in his bed? --Animiertes Fleisch (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that as well and I'm sure you're right, but it's not worth mentioning in the article. --Viennese Waltz 08:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Minions are yellow skinned, alluding North Asians (China, japan, Koreas, Mongols, Manchus etc), while the main characters are obviously Caucasian. The whole characterisation is a subjugating NLP levelled at the yellow skins, evenm as all this talk about China being a 'factory floor' is just as bad. If the minions had been multicoloured, and the main villians less Caucasian, China would have allowed this to be aired. Thats the problem with all these English movies and animation movies, too much propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.148.51 (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Speaking as a Caucasian, I perceive nothing at all "North Asian" in the appearance and characterisation of the Minions. Their speech is a melange of European languages with a preponderance of French, and their mannerisms and culture appear "Western". Their skin colour is irrelevant, as they are explicitly genetically engineered beings rather than being from any "natural" racial group: given their passion for bananas, perhaps they possess some vegetable genes! Why would the makers of a children's comedy film be concerned with promulgating a dubious (and very out-dated) socio-political message? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.237.92 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack listings

I was reading the article and was surprised to learn that there were other soundtrack albums ... especially since no other website knows anything about them. The data is probably worth keeping, but I reworked the section's information to try to make it clear they don't exist. - Salamurai (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary seems extremely long to me

I think that wikipedia is not the place for a blow by blow, scene by scene, description of the plot of films.

Four or Five paragraphs seems right to me.

I want to take this article and edit out about two-thirds of the "plot" section.

Eckeck77 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you've not reduced the length of the "Plot" section, yet. Before you do, the discussion should move beyond personal opinion: are there guidelines for this? How long are plot summaries in other Wikipedia articles about films? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently nobody is updating the "Plot" section, or addressing its length. But I agree with above person. It is quite lengthy. While I'd say that official guidelines for length are not necessary, a play by play as it is written is a bit excessive. An edit would be preferred in this case, especially with a sequel coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.188.78 (talk • contribs) 23:27, October 2, 2012

I don't see why the coming of a sequel is relevant. Each movie will be it's own stand-alone creation with it's own plot. They should each be entered onto WP with equal footing. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The plot summary appears to be between 400 and 700 words as is appropriate per WP:FILMPLOT. The problem may be that the rest of the article is not developed enough for the summary to be a relatively small portion of it, such as at American Beauty (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar correction (Section "Plot")

Please replace "the quicker the effect's of the shrink ray wear off" with "the quicker the effects of the shrink ray wear off" (remove apostrophe from effects)

121.213.210.64 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Girls Scout - schmerl schowt

They weren't selling Girl Scout Cookies - just cookies. Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You're correct. I've changed it. It was a parody of Girl Scout cookies, not actually them. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Typo in reference

The second paragraph of the Critical reception subsection starts:

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film three out of four stars, saying "You don't need to know more except that directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud are expert are springing surprises from the ingenious script by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio."

This is indeed what the source says, but he presumably meant "... are expert at springing surprises ...". Does the second "are" deserve a [sic]? -- ToE 23:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Thinking of England: I reviewed WP:SIC, and it does look like we should use that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Other options would be to put the correct word in brackets, "... are expert [at] springing surprises ..." or simply to correct it, "... are expert at springing surprises ..." per MOS:QUOTE's "... trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important", however I am concerned that this trivial "wordo" may not qualify as a typo or spelling error. We should seek the best balance between preserving the integrity of the quote, not bringing undue attention to the error, and avoiding text which prompts our readers into wasting their time trying to correct what they may perceived as Wikipedia's error. -- ToE 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Another option is to just paraphrase the quote. We could say that Travers said the directors were skilled at "springing surprises" from the screenwriters' "ingenious" screenplay. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way its fine, or we could just remove it altogether. Koala15 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference amongst the options; I went ahead with the paraphrase. -- ToE 01:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Way too much in the critical reception

Other movies are given a couple of quotes by movie critics. It just seems to drag on and on here.70.82.109.203 (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Despicable Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/movie-review-despicable-me/2054628/content
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.film.com/features/story/review-despicable-me-brings-funny/39195413

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Despicable Me. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216232924/http://annieawards.org/legacy38th.html to http://annieawards.org/legacy38th.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69zuqErho?url=http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2010.php to http://www.bfca.org/ccawards/2010.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505130819/http://www.goldenglobes.org/blog/2010/12/the-68th-annual-golden-globe-awards-nominations/ to http://www.goldenglobes.org/blog/2010/12/the-68th-annual-golden-globe-awards-nominations/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Despicable Me. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thespastudios.com/despicable-me.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322071437/http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/02/kids-choice-awards-2011-nominees-miley-cyrus-justin-bieber-and-selena-gomez-lead.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/02/kids-choice-awards-2011-nominees-miley-cyrus-justin-bieber-and-selena-gomez-lead.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 12:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oldest girl's name

Is it Margo or Margaux? I've seen conflicting versions on different websites and want to make sure that it is correct here. YborCityJohn (talk)

http://www.despicable.me/biography/the-girls Use the official site, which says Margo. --Tarage (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Despicable Me (franchise) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 14:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Despicable Me (film) → Despicable Me (2010 film) – The word "film" doesn't logically dis-ambiguate it from its sequels. I would like to propose a move to Despicable Me 1, but I'm sure that would get too many oppose votes because some Wikipedians would label it as original research. Georgia guy (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This article was disambiguated from the franchise article per this move as the franchise became the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than the first film in the series -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 19:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  User:Gouleg, I understand that the word "film" dis-ambiguates the film from the franchise, but not from its sequels, which are also films. I'm talking about dis-ambiguating the film from its sequels. Georgia guy (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as overly precise. Even if someone does somehow wind up on this page expecting the sequels, they are already listed in the lead. And given that there is an article at bare Despicable Me already, the potential for confusion is quite low. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, the other films aren't called "Despicable Me", they are "Despicable Me 2" and so forth which disambiguates them just fine. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Cerebral726, they are dis-ambiguated by their sequel numbers, and this requested move won't affect their articles' titles. Georgia guy (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm saying that the requested move is unnecessary because Despicable Me (film) is already disambiguated from all the other films and from the franchise, so there is no need to change it or make the disambiguation needlessly longer. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: per Cerebral726. From what I've seen on this website, year in title is usually added to differentiate it from works with the same title, and there is no other film titled "Despicable Me" (with no numbers) than this one -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 14:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The franchise is not a film and the other films are not in whole titled Despicable Me. Even if there's ambiguity given the polysemy of film, that's what a hatnote is for. Nardog (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per others; this is the only film titled just Despicable Me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as mentioned none of the other films are specifically known as Despicable Me.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.