Jump to content

Talk:Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:410:4200:2210:e5ab:dbf2:7ae9:3633 (talk) at 00:51, 30 July 2022 (→Other Toon Cameos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scrooge should stay in the list

The prose paragraph wasn’t about whether a character was voiced. It was just listing characters. Why is Scrooge being singled out on the basis of a voice being unconfirmed when it’s a completely unrelated detail? Now it’s your turn @Jasonbres:.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me your source that David Tennant is definitely voicing Scrooge. Because I don't see any such source. Until we hear it officially, his voice actor should not be listed at all. End of story. Thank you. Have a nice day. - Jasonbres (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about David Tennant! You mentioned David Tennant first, Scrooge was in a prose paragraph that didn't mention voice actors. Your argument does not address my statement. End of story.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying it's not about Tennant. On the contrary, it's ALL about him. What part of "please cite your sources" don't you understand?? I really don't want to argue because it would end up getting BOTH of us banned. - Jasonbres (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one putting him back in the bulleted list. I only restored Scrooge to the prose paragraph in the same section. Therefore citing my sources wasn't my burden. You have me confused with someone else--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I apologize. - Jasonbres (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should Squidward and Chun Li be added as mentioned characters in the cast list?

Just wondering. MestFanLol (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any cameo characters (shown or mentioned but not any significance to the plot).should only be included if there are third party sources for them. --Masem (t) 21:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thx MestFanLol (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Carpet

Should it be stated that it might not be the real Magic Carpet? It looks very stiff and is held up by wires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.234.139 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other Toon Cameos

I was going to add to the article that Clarabelle Cow appears as the teacher in the school Chip and Dale go to. Also the hybrids/bootlegged characters towards the end of the film include:

and

Those were most of the cameos that I spotted in the film. Joey108 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to mention:

and

All cameos that are not directly mentioned in the dialog need to have 3rd party sources for inclusion, becuase this type of spotting does fall under original research. --Masem (t) 22:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be plenty of articles popping up about it that would prevent it from being unsourced OR CreecregofLife (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, we'd face a similar problem that was had at Ready Player One (film), in that it would be improper to also list all these cameos. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It was already getting bulbous and bloated in the early hours of release. Honestly, a cast list should be just that. Billboard and image stuff should be left out. Otherwise it borders on saying RDJ was in Far From Home...The ones who are silent should also probably be streamlined out CreecregofLife (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are character not cast. You might be able to add them as Production details, either as part of the creating/writing process or possibly even as part of the VFX process. -- 109.79.162.205 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, I agree with CreecregofLife. Listing literally every single cameo would be a bit much, and could debatably be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation. We can mention some cameos, but not every single one. The current cameo list is just about as much as we should add, if not trim it further. (Additionally, the source provided only mentions some of the cameos listed, not all of them, so a good chunk of the current cameo list is unsourced/original research). SkyWarrior 21:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Driscoll

I'm not sure why CreecregofLife is continuing to remove the mention of people finding parallels between Sweet Pete and Bobby Driscoll. The fact that we now have two reviews criticizing this and at least one mainstream outlet mentioning the criticism means that it's widespread enough to be worth a one-sentence mention in the reception section. It doesn't need it's own section or a huge spotlight, but trying to remove any mention (especially without any explanation) seems counterproductive at best. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People finding parallels is SYNTH and does not actually critique the movie CreecregofLife (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RSes finding parallels is not SYNTH. that only comes into play if we as editors made the connection. That Inverse made it a clear connection means its fair game for us to include, as long as it meets DUE, which to me is we're on the edge of. The only real source that's reliable is Inverse (TMZ is not at all). --Masem (t) 23:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone makes contextless criticism and it goes viral doesn’t make it legitimate criticism, and so far, including such is phrased in a way to legitimize it. It’s not “unfortunate”, it’s not “tasteless”, it is commentary. One person is not "some". That is what makes it SYNTH. It is a synthetic amplification of a single opinion that gives it undue weight. They missed the point, and we should not be platforming such in a favorable manner CreecregofLife (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's two reviews, though. Two is "some". (Pretty sure ComingSoon is on our list of reliable sources for reviews; Masem will have to correct me if I'm wrong.) And who are you to say they "missed the point"? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I do say there is an UNDUE aspect here. A source or two pointing this out may make it inappropriate to include, particularly when I see this seems to be more viewer-driven concern than film critic/historian concerns. --Masem (t) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Would it perhaps make more sense to just trim it down to the Inverse review, rewriting it as "Mónica Marie Zorrilla of Inverse [liked this that and the other thing] but found the portrayal of Sweet Pete distasteful due to [blah blah blah]"? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heck no. That’s still undue weight. This isn’t the “Turning Red didn’t cater to me, the white man” level CreecregofLife (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was asking Masem, who is an admin and objectively in a better position to know what is and is not appropriate for inclusion. Please don't be rude. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t being rude. Your solution does not address Masem's concerns CreecregofLife (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't speak for others. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I speak for anyone? All I did was make an observation about what you said and how it doesn't actually address Masem's concerns. I'm really not liking the turn this conversation is taking. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First I asked Masem a question, and you gave your own answer in his place. Then you insisted that my suggestion didn't answer his concerns, speaking for him again. That's twice now you've spoken on his behalf when he is more than capable of answering the question himself. Please dial things back. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed that it was in his place. Making my own observations is not speaking on his behalf, and to imply otherwise is incredibly bad-faith. You are the only one escalating here, I do not have to dial back. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A day later, it seems Masem and I are leaning in favor of Keep, while only CreecregofLife remains in favor of Remove. While a few random IPs have attempted to remove the section and a few others have tried to expand it, these cannot be used as any sort of evidence in favor or against, as there was no participation in the actual discussion and they could very well have been used as sockpuppets or meatpuppets. And again, as Masem is an administrator and seems to think it is acceptable for inclusion, I see no reason to think otherwise. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Seems” does not mean he does, and he specifically stated just having one or two sources makes it inappropriate for inclusion. You do not get to discard what was done that you don’t agree with. I am utterly appalled that a day after you accused me of speaking for them you are doing exactly that. I will once again point out that you have not addressed There is no Keep consensus. CreecregofLife (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Here's a list of every user that tried to remove it but didn't speak on this talk page. ([1] [2]) And here's every user that tried to expand it. ([3] [4] [5]) More are leaning towards keep, furthering consensus. And considering Masem literally told you he thought there was consensus to keep not minutes ago, to say he didn't feels disingenuous at best. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He thought there was consensus. Didn't mean he was part of the consensus. The ones that tried to expand it didn't give a reason, and you still haven't addressed the actual issues CreecregofLife (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you literally just say you don't get to discard what was done that you don’t agree with? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence he is in your favor, therefore I'm not discarding anything. Stop making assumptions, stop readding the content because it is not acceptable in that form. CreecregofLife (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem has added back the content three times when it was removed. There's no reason to believe he's not. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not evidence CreecregofLife (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the Vanity Fair article (among other new sources but not as strong), the DUEness of this information is much higher. It should not be removed at this point. --Masem (t) 03:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair source isn’t readable for non-subscribers beyond the first paragraph, for the record. But I do think the film’s page reads much better now CreecregofLife (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PAYWALL; we accept articles as references that may be blocked without a subscription. Those articles can still meet WP:V by someone who does have that. --Masem (t) 05:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The VanityFair paywall is essentially fake, it is more like a "nag-wall" because if they want their content to be indexed by Google or other search engine robots the text has to be visible. You can view the Vanity Fair article in full without] the subscription nag by reading a copy at the Internet Archive. Other archiving services have copies too.[6] Frequently using "incognito mode" opening the link in a "new private tab" is even enough to get around the nagwall long enough to verify the reference. If anyone thinks it is a problem, they might consider adding the archive copy to the Vanity Fair reference and maybe also the parameter url-access=limited to warn other readers. -- 109.77.206.203 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters?

Anyone know why in the end credits at the 1:36:19 mark, in the section where the "Producers Wish to Thank" there is a mention of Ghostbusters courtesy of Columbia Pictures? Was there actually something from Ghostbusters used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.85.104 (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an animated character wearing a shirt with the Ghostbusters logo on it in the shot where Chip puts on the Indiana Jones suit and everyone recognizes them. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chip n Dale: Rescue Rangers - The Movie debut data

According to Nielsen, Disney's Chip n Dale: Rescue Rangers movie on Disney+ scored the #2 slot for the May 16-22 week of streaming movies, along with 5th place overall for streaming content, with 594 million minutes streamed: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/nielsen-streaming-top-10-ratings-chip-n-dale-ozark-lincoln-lawyer-1235296706/.

Was hoping we could add this information into the film's wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelDisney20 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_%27n_Dale:_Rescue_Rangers_(film)&oldid=1101241159"