Talk:One Hundred and One Dalmatians/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Shouldn't we mention...

...the spinoffs? --Wack'd About Wiki 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know of Patch's London Adventure, 102 Dalmations and the live action film staring Glenn Close --Starionwolf 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We'll make a section of the article for that.

Who has the 1985 video release?

According to User Tregoweth, his copy of Disney A to Z says this film was released on videocassette in 1992. Is the 1985 release a PAL version or something, I need to find out this info, thank you 4.245.215.92 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The 1985 video release by Walt Disney Home Video (not a part of the Classics collection) is harder to find than the slipcase version of Alice in Wonderland, so consider yourself lucky if you own it. And no, the 1985 release was NOT PAL. --Ryanasaurus0077 10:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

101 spot

Is it true it was the top-grossing animated pic of 1962 1961? Kinda DeVille 09:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Puppies names

Not all of the puppies mentioned in this article belong here, many of them belong to the live action film of the same name. I.e: Jewel, Dipstick, Fidget, Two Tone and, Whizzer. --Aria elwen 08:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Suggestions

Some to-dos that need to be done for this article:

  • The characters section needs to be fixed up and properly formatted per the Film MOS.
  • Entire production section needs sourcing, and clean up. New DVD release has a making of featurette that may provide additional information.
  • Reception section needs sourcing as well.
  • Distribution section needs clean up to convert the list to prose and add more sources.
  • If sourceable, a summary of the changes the film makes to the book's story should be added, particularly if it can be well sourced as to why the changes were made, such as the female Sargent Willow being changed to the male Sargent Tibbs, the removal of the other two adult dogs, the changes to the Badduns, the puppies already having a love of TV before being stolen, and of course the major plot changes, etc.
  • At least some mention of it being released to home video as 101 Dalmatians should be made, with proper sourcing.
  • The lead section needs redoing per WP:LEAD and the Film MOS.

Collectonian (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cadpig

As part of some recent clean up of this article, I removed Cadpig from the list of characters, as had an editor before me. The segment stated:

  • Cadpig
According to the novel, Cadpig is the smallest pup of the litter and she was the one that Roger brought back to life. Although the character appears in the movie, she was never specifically named. Not coincidentally, this puppy is based on a real life event that happened to author Dodie Smith. The pup was the 13th of a litter of 15 who was stillborn but brought back to life by a vigorous massage by her husband.

This, to me, is trivial information on a minor character that does not need to be mentioned. It is also mostly unsourced. The puppy is unnamed in the film and appears only for a brief moment as the pup that nearly died during the early scenes. Mentioning her is going into extremely minute and irrelevant detail about the film in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and the film MOS. Additionally, the information on the real life event is relevant to the novel, not this adaptation. User:Lighthope disagrees, noting that the identification is made in the trivia section of the latest DVD release and reading the section with this rewrite:

  • Cadpig
Unnamed in the movie, she is identified by name in the pop-up trivia of the Platinum edition of 101 Dalmatians. Based on the real life experience of author Dodie Smith, this pup was the 13th of 15 puppies and was born dead. However, after a vigorous massage by Smith's husband, the pup was brought back to life.

We attempted to discuss on her talk page and I again removed, however Lighthope still feels this should be mentioned. As such, I'm asking for additional opinions to avoid needly reverting and a stale mate. Collectonian (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the character is interesting enough that it warrents inclusion in the article. The character is known by many people as the "pup who almost died", she appears in the cartoon series, and is based on a real life experience by the author. In an encyclopaedic environment, there is no reason to withhold information except in cases where the information provides no insight. There is no question that this character was important enough to the author to include in her story and to Disney to include in the film. The simple fact that her name is not actually said on screen does not imply that the character had no name. In fact, as we can see, she did indeed have a name. And the fact that she had a name that was not mentioned on screen makes it even more important that it be listed. Lighthope (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The longstanding issue of trivia is being considered here. Is it trivial to provide information on a minor character in a film? Yes and no, and I can see both of your arguments have validity. In casting a vote, I tend to allow the inclusion of information that relates to the better understanding of the story. If Cadpig is indeed the basis of an ongoing later development in the series, there appears to be a case for retaining the note. Where should it appear? There are a number of options that can include an "aside" statement within the body of the text, a "reference note" embedded in a foot/endnote or a brief mention in a related section such as continuity of the characters. A disclaimer regarding the appearance or lack of appearance in the initial work may also be included. The main concern I would have is in placing too much emphasis on a minor character wherein the inclusion would then be indeed trivial and non-consequential.
My "take" on a revision:
  • Cadpig <!ref> "Puppy Profiler ." Walt Disney 101 Dalmatians 2-Disc Platinum Edition (DVD). Buena Vista, California: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 2008. Note: Unmentioned in screen credits, Cadpig, the 13th of 15 in the litter was known as the "pup who almost died." <!/ref>

FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC).

If this were about the novel, it wouldn't be an argument, as Cadpig frequently appears. In the film, however, while the "pup who almost died" is a touching little scene for a few seconds, the pup is never identified again as being "that pup that almost died" and the incident is never mentioned again or revisited within the film. At best, maybe a footnote in the plot section noting that "This pup is unnamed in the movie, but identified in the "Puppy Profiler" as being named Cadpig, the same as in the novel." Collectonian (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I can live with that footnote. It conveys information, which I like, but does not draw too much attention to a minor character. Lighthope (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I started to add it, then realized the pup that almost died isn't even mentioned in the plot summary. Should it be? Collectonian (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As it really doesn't affect the plot, I wouldn't add it to the summary. Lighthope (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You said you wouldn't add it to the summary, but then you just did?? Collectonian (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out where else to put it without drawing undo attention to itself. If anyone can find a more appropriate place to put the information, I would welcome it. But as it stands, it seem to be innocuous enough. Lighthope (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's fine where it is, though I did reword a little. Just had to point that out though LOL Collectonian (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I figured it would elicit a comment. :) :) :) Lighthope (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)