Talk:Monsters, Inc./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Hooks, Ed (2005). "Monsters, Inc.". Acting in Animation: A Look at 12 Films. Heinemann Drama. ISBN 0325007055.
  • Paik, Karen (2007). "Monsters, Inc.". To Infinity and Beyond!: The Story of Pixar Animation Studios. Chronicle Books. ISBN 0811850129.
  • Velarde, Robert (2010). "Humor". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 61–73. ISBN 0830832971.

Manga

I agree that the reference to the manga version should be here. I don't see the relevance of the lists and indexes of manga links. Those belong in an article about manga rather than here. I intend to do some trimming. Any thoughts before I do? Glenn6502 14:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Universe or World

I just watched "Monsters, Inc." yesterday. It seems to me that the monsters live on another world, whether in a parallel dimension or not is irrelevant. When they go through a closet door, they are coming in to our world using the door as a portal. This is similar to the stargates, though not as big nor nearly as noisy. Unless someone objects within a week, I'm going to change it back to talk about "world". Val42 18:20, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, though I got more of the idea like the labyrinth from Greek mythology. BelieVerr (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Animated shorts

What animated short(s) aired with this movie at any time? This includes in theters or on DVD/VHS. --Wack'd About Wiki 16:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It aired with For the Birds (which is unrelated to Monsters Inc.) in cinemas and, on the VHS and DVD release, it also featured Mike's New Car, in which Mike gets a new car (duh). Squidward2602 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

The article is tagged as needing a cleanup. I can't see anything wrong with it. Shall I remove the notice?

--JimmyTheWig 11:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just randomly stumbled upon this article, and it seems to me that it does need some cleanup, particularly in the "Plot" section. The plot summary is not concise at all, and would be very confusing to someone who has not seen the film. I have not seen the film in a couple years, so this was particularly evident to me as I read it. Anyways, I was just voicing my opinion as it seemed like no one was saying anything. I am agreeing with the cleanup notice. 71.112.229.9 03:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. We're watching it about three times a week with our two year old (lucky it's such a great film), so it was bound to make sense to me!
Will try and write something better when I have a chance.
--JimmyTheWig 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned the text up and added some details. Please let us know if the cleanup tag can be removed now. -Wilfredo Martinez 05:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

What are anybody's thoughts on trying to improve this article to FA standard? Naturally, the first step would be a peer review, then we can work on it. It would be nice to emulate the success of the Final Fantasy articles and have several Pixar articles featured. RMS Oceanic 10:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We can start with the style guidelines; add production notes, cast notes, etc. :)HoneyBee 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Can i have a link to monster inc game

Original short film

Years before this movie came out I saw a (differently) animated short on IFC's short film showcase called Monsters, Inc and the concept was the same. Either this movie is based on that or Disney's got some splanin' to do.

Has anyone else seen the short I'm talking about? I'm trying to locate it (as well as reference materials) but am so far having little to no luck. Any thoughts/help?

Images

The images here need to be replaced; They're blurry and obviously photos taken of a TV. I can replace them soon with pictures off of my Monsters Inc. DVD with my computer. I just need to know how you attach the copyright information so the images won't be taken down. If you know, please reply and tell me, please!Catcher Block 02:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast Section

Is there much point in having the cast of all the different languages that MI was dubbed in on the English page? Shouldn't these be moved to that language's respective article? RMS Oceanic 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Billy Crystal as Michael "Mike" Wazowski paragraph there is a sentence that says, "He makes cameo appearances in Finding Nemo, Cars, WALL-E and Toy Story 3." Is that referring to Billy Crystal or Mike Wazowski? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.53.139 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

I heard a rumor about a sequel planed for release 2010 is this true

PS I don't want trouble

Sonicrules2 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Sonicrules2

No, I'm pretty sure they aren't planning to make a sequel... at least not anytime soon. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this out, don't know if it's true!! http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestsequels/default.asp?c=4

Yeah, a sequel does appear to be in the works, but that wasn't really known back in April. And certainly not in 2007. Powers T 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed the link to the sequel as it just takes us back to this page through a redirect--TimothyJacobson (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The sequel is for November 2012, for those wondering. 69.228.89.220 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs More

Do we need the mistakes/blips in this article? I don't think it's necessary. Put some production notes, change list to prose, fix the cast list, etc. Check the [[1]] to be sure. Can anyone help? HoneyBee 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

DONE. Also removed newly created trivia section (SEE ABOVE, PEOPLE) which had dupes from Mistakes section.

As before, please integrate these into article text with citations ... or leave mistakes out as 'too much trivia.' -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Mistakes/Blips
  • Towards the end of the film, when Mike and Sulley meet the CDA "number 00001", several different CDA monsters have the same number, 00112 - the same texture had been used on several models to reduce modeling time.
  • In the very first scene, in the kid's room simulator, one angle shows a floor mat with a ball and a toy train set on it. However, when the first monster falls down on the mat, the train is no longer there and in its place are the jacks he falls on. The soccer ball appears to move, too.
  • In the international version of the video/DVD several instances of written English text have been replaced with universal symbols (see Alternate Versions). However on several occasions they switch back to the original appearance. For instance: The "Standby/Scare" sign in the factory, the "Contamination alert" on the video wall during the first 2319 and the joke on the video wall in the final scene.
  • Sulley makes Boo giggle a few times when they play hide and seek in the restroom, but the power never spikes and no lights blow out. (According to the commentary on the DVD, the creators realized this but chose not to address it.)
  • When Sulley is playing hide and seek with Boo in the men's bathroom, Sulley walks into the stall where he thinks that she is. When Sulley turns around to see her outside of the stall, we see Boo and Boo's reflection in the mirror, but not Sulley's reflection. All that the camera sees is an empty stall and toilet... minus Sulley.
  • In the opening scene when the monster comes through the door, he closes the door most of the way, but when the instructor does a review of what the student did wrong, the door is left mostly open.
  • The scoreboard on the video wall sometimes shows decreased values for some monsters, for instance when Waternoose talks to Jerry and just before the first 2319.
  • When in the ice cave, Mike picks up the last snow cone. As he first picks it up the snow is yellow, then it goes white and then back to yellow.
  • When Mike walks away after congratulating Celia (in the beginning of the film) he passes a marking in the floor. In the next shot, viewed from above, he is much nearer her than in the shot before, which can be seen by the floor markings.
  • When the C.D.A are scanning Monsters, Inc., a co-scarer opens the door that doesn't seem to be there but are there when Mike and Sulley open the door.
  • When Mike is talking to Roz about his paper work, Mike's lip crosses through the counter at one point.
  • When we see Mike wake up Sulley in the beginning, we see Sulley's alarm clock on his right-hand night stand, but later when Boo jumps into Sulley's bed the alarm clock is not there.
  • When Sulley goes to put Boo back in her room, the clock above the door of the scare floor clearly indicates 5:50; when he runs out of the room it indicates 6:50.
  • Mostly towards the end, we learn that laughing creates much more energy than screaming does. Near the end of the movie, while Sulley, Mike, and Boo are riding the doors, Boo screams, and starts to power up the door that they are riding. When Sulley and Mike make Boo laugh very short after, it powers up every door in the large room they are in, or at least what we see of them, implying that laughter is hundreds, if not thousands of times more powerful than screaming. Yet right before the ending, after Mike gloats about how funny he is, Sulley says that laughing is only 10 times more powerful than screaming.
  • In the scene where Mike and Sulley are escaping from Randall through the doors, right before they enter the door laying on the ground that leads to Paris, you can see a wrench in the background that resembles Randall, himself. (Or a serpent in general.)
  • In the scene where Sulley puts Boo back in to her room, she hands Sulley some toys, including a doll that resembles Jesse (from Toy Story 2) and a fish that looks like Nemo and the ball from Toy Story and Toy Story 2.
Trivia
  • Before the scene where Roz shreds Boo's door, Boo is seen giving Sulley some toys. One of the toys appears to be Jessie from Toy Story 2 and another was an orange clownfish, perhaps representing Nemo or Marlin from Finding Nemo, despite the fact that it was still two years away from release.
  • In the scene where Mike and Sulley are escaping from Randall through the doors, right before they enter the door laying on the ground that leads to Paris, you can see a wrench in the background that resembles Randall, himself. (Or a serpent in general.)
  • When Randall is in the trailer, on the far left, you can see the Pizza Planet truck from Toy Story and Toy Story 2.


Looking through these, the *only* trivia point of interest is how they mic'd Mary Gibbs for Boo and used her drawings in the film. That would go in the production section but they NEED citation. The rest of this trivia/mistakes can be left to sites that deal with that information better (Imbd, moviemistakes.com). --Masem 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The entire Mistakes/Blips section appears to be a word-for-word (even down to the order of the items) copy of the Goofs section of the IMDb entry, thus a copyright violation. -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Recurring Gags

  • "2319!" The gag used 3 times on one monster, and once on a CDA worker involving contamination by contact with a human child's possessions and the cataclysmic and excessive methods of cleaning the contamination and its immediate area. The term 2319 refers to the twenty third and nineteenth letters of the alphabet. W and S respectively, and relate directly to the offending article of the child's clothing. Namely a White Sock.

Are you kidding me? I mean, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.8.140 (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is actually an inventive way of thinking about things, and even though it really isn't important enough to go in the article, it shouldn't be put down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.224.135 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In at least some countries the title of the film was changed to avoid the fact that "Inc." is a suffix that an American company would have - in Slovakia they called it Monsters s.r.o. (which is a Slovak company suffix). Making changes to the title for foreign language versions is common practice and not notable, but did the same thing happen for other English-speaking countries that don't use "Inc."? So was the British version Monsters Ltd. or Monsters plc. ? If so then it should go in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.130 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It was called monsters inc here in the uk. Plugwash (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Production

In the Production section it says something like "...completed a draft treatment in February, 2007." I am 97% sure that Monsters, Inc. was completed long before that time, but I don't know what the true date should read, can someone help by fixing that? Jashack (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just 97% sure? That is obviously incorrect since the film was released in 2001. This was added by PBP. I've asked him/her to respond to this. kollision (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't notice that. The text is taken from the Pixar Wiki and it looks like I didn't read it very carefully. I don't know what the real date should be; maybe some Googling will shed some light on this. PBP (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kollision and PBP for resolving this issue, and obviously i was making a joke when i put 97%, but i didn't want to sound cocky by putting 100%. Thanks again! Jashack (talk) 6:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Roz

Roz is mentioned in the end of plot section as reaveling herself to be the head of the CDA, but she isn't mentioned anywhere else so people who haven't watched the movie don't know who she is. She has to be added at the beginnng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.126.97 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd annual DEG Japan Awards/Blu-ray Prizes

This won an award in the DEG; see http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-18/ponyo-bakemonogatari-conan-win-japanese-bd-prizes --Gwern (contribs) 15:02 20 February 2010 (GMT)

Teenage Boo

Can anyone prove Miranda Cosgrove will voice teenage Boo? I noticed there wasn't any citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.132 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for throwing away an hour's work

Thanks for throwing away an hour's work, Coder Dan. Who's to decide what's "unimportant detail"? Many of my changes were to tighten the existing text by saying the same things with fewer words. Could you have not thrown out the baby with the bathwater? Karn (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(Moved unproductive argument to User talk:Coder Dan#Thanks for throwing away an hour's work.)

Can you guys take your discussion to one of your talk pages? This isn't helping the quality of the article at all and I'm sick of reading from my watchlist. BOVINEBOY2008 14:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. —Coder Dan (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Monsters, Inc. 2

Why isn't there an article about the sequel? Hashbron (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Because some Wikipedians think it's just a rumor. Please feel free to create one if you can prove it isn't just a stub. Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Please only create an article for Monsters University if it satisfies guidelines WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University voice cast

I saw it's written that "The feature will be directed by Dan Scanlon, written by Pete Docter and Andrew Stanton, and produced by John Lasseter and Kori Rae. It was also announced that John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi, Jennifer Tilly, Bob Peterson, Frank Oz, John Ratzenberger and Bonnie Hunt will be reprising their roles."

The sources given only confirm that John Goodman and Billy Crystal to return. ALL the other ones are absolutely not mentionned. In the same way, the sources given do not give a name for the writers. Therefore, I will coninue to remove these names unless a source is given. I'm not familiar with this wiki system, and I hope I am not doing an error.--65.92.142.174 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Proof that I'm new, I forgot to log in. This message was written by me.--Gray Catbird (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

Reverted 71.179.9.211's edits and gave him level 1 warning. 74.12.122.105 (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) (Thomas)

Monsters University

It's kind of surprising that there's still no article on Monsters University. Even http://disney.go.com/movies/new-upcoming (the official site) references the movie as coming in June 2013, so this film definitely can't be just a rumor. Georgia guy (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm You still haven't actually read WP:NFF yet, have you? - BilCat (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles", but Monsters University has been confirmed; the above URL (which is official) mentions it. Georgia guy (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NFF: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Any official proof that Monsters University is still in pre-production?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You've got that the wrong way around! To meet the guideline, we need a source that shows "that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process" - you seem to be suggesting that all we need is to prove that it isn't not out of pre-production! -Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
And can you do so?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No - I can't find a reliable source to show that it is out of pre-production. Therefore we have to assume that it isn't until a source can be found. Once we have a reliable source, only then will Monsters University meet the notability criteria set down at WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is called accepting something without proof. Specifically, you're saying that Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that Monsters University is still in the middle of pre-production. Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow! That's exactly what you're suggesting!!! You're saying that as we don't know whether or not it is out of the pre-production stage yet, we should assume that it is? What nonsense! Last thing we knew, it was in pre-production. Until we find can find a reliable source to show that production has progressed, we mustn't assume that it is anything but still in the pre-production stage. I'd suggest a read of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Verifiability. Find the source, then we have something to talk about... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
That was a few months ago though. We should probably hear news about this film's progress sometime within the next 6 months. Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Great! Let's hope there is some news soon, and then we will have a source to satisfy WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, we're about the same distance from this film's release as we were from Wreck-It Ralph's release when I created an article for that film. I'll be surprised if no source is found within a month. Georgia guy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines state that you need a reliable source stating that it is out of pre-production stages. The guidelines DO NOT state that you need to be able to disprove such a claim before preventing you from making an article. You can make an article if you have found a reliable source acceptable by wikipedia's standards that demonstrates the film is out of pre-production. Otherwise you will need to wait. The onus is not on wikipedia to disprove your claim, the onus is on you to prove it with reliable sources. 69.196.168.189 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Monsters University

This page already exists as a well formatted and cited article. Yet it is currently being redirected here. Although the redirect has been removed multiple times, a few editors continue to redirect the page with the justification of a previous consensus to merge the article into this one because sources couldn't confirm that production had began. That was 10 months ago, and sources have now confirmed that production has begun. Several attempts in the last month have restored the page, only to be reverted, usually by a single editor who continues to use the nearly year old consensus as justification. Most of the concerns in the previous consensus were that production had not begun and that there were not enough sources. Those sources have been found, but the reverting editor is now using another justification for restoring the redirect. The reason given is that the production is not notable. But this was not a major concern of most of the participants in the previous discussion. The concern was that there were no sources to confirm that the production has begun. It has begun, several months ago.--JOJ Hutton 21:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that it did not meet the notability guideline. As there have been no new developments or coverage since then, it still does not meet the guideline. Once we see persistent coverage, then notability will be established. Just because production has commenced, it is not automatically notable per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was that the article did not merit notability per the guideline, because sources could not confirm that production had begun. Sources now confirm this, yet now you add another justification that was not part of the previous consensus. That was a year ago, its time to move on from that, and stop using that as justification for deleting the article.--JOJ Hutton 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Rather than attack my opinion personally, let's just see if there is consensus from other editors that notability guidelines have been met regarding persistent coverage and whether consensus is that it is now time to split to its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Smitty and Needleman

Surely the two characters Smitty and Needleman are based on Kevin and Perry?. They both talk and behave exactly like Kevin and Perry, and the shorter slug-like one (I think it's Smitty) looks exactly like Kevin with his hair down over one eye and a hat/helmet - see [2]. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Pixar writer/animator saw these incredibly popular in the UK characters on the tv or YouTube and decided to base Smitty and Needleman on them. So has it been mentioned anywhere? Kevin and Perry were first developed as characters in 1990 and continued for at least ten years, even getting their own movie in 2000: Kevin & Perry Go Large, so the timeframe is easily right. Perry is played by the fantastic Kathy Burke. 86.133.53.209 (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

After a brief YouTube perusal, the hair and some elements of the speaking voice do correlate (though gosh, Kevin's usually yelling, it seems), but that's about it. It seems an odd way to put in an intentional reference. Still, if you can find any sources that discuss it, it may merit a mention. Powers T 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change for Monsters, Inc. 3D theatrical release date

Hi, I saw that you listed the release date for Monsters, Inc. 3D as 2012. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to specify the 3D theatrical release date as December 19, 2012. Here are a few sources supporting the December 19, 2012 theatrical release date: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-monsters-inc-release-date-353540 http://www.movieinsider.com/m7913/monsters-inc/ http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/monsters-inc-release-date-move-disney-december-19-2012/

Thanks very much. Please let me know if these sources are insufficient and I will be happy to grab a few others for you.

Jbettigo (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

differences between 2d and 3d blu-rays

I had noticed some minor differences between the 3d and 2d blu-rays, paticularly with the signage usage. for instance, when the CDA are called in to deal with the 23-19 on scarefloor f, the message on the screen read "Warning. Contamination Alert." however, in the 3d one, a child version of the radioactive symbol is used instead. Any particular reason for this, I'd like to know? Visokor (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I actually realised now... the 3d blu-ray is the international version... Visokor (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monsters, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've been slower to get to this than planned; I've had some health issues slowing me down. Haven't forgotten you, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

  • First, I'd suggest giving the article a top-to-bottom proofread. I notice you haven't worked on the article yet, and there appear to be some minor but obvious errors here still like this one.[3]
  • Very short sections and subsections should be combined per WP:LAYOUT-- "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".
  • Some sections and statements are in clear need of citation, such as "The dark ride was developed to boost the theme park's lagging attendance, and was quite successful in doing so for a short time" and "The attraction has been praised for its originality."
  • On a much smaller note, "Billy Crystal, having regretted turning down the part of Buzz Lightyear years prior, accepted that of Mike Wazowski, Sulley's one-eyed best friend and scare assistant" hardly seems to need four citations.
  • The American Film Institute list inclusions should be turned into prose, as there's very little content there (per WP:EMBED).

This should give you a start. Thanks for being willing to take this one on. Once you've had a chance to work on the article some, I'll be glad to take a more detailed pass myself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think i fixed most of the issues you suggested. Koala15 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll take a fuller pass tonight or tomorrow and let you know if I see any remaining issues. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem strictly true to say it "received highly positive reviews from critics and audiences" -- do we have evidence that audiences praised the film in this way? It might be better to put this more concretely by saying that it was praised by critics and was a box office success.
  • "parallel city " is a slightly confusing way to describe Monstropolis. Is this how it's described in the movie? It might be easier to just say "the city of Monstropolis".
  • I've done some tightening in the Voice Cast section. Are you sure you've proofread this? Sentences like "And has to impress Alan, Goe, and Daved" seem to be outright vandalism, though maybe I'm not understanding or this is just a part of the movie I'm forgetting. It'll be a lot easier if you read this article before I do. =)

More in a bit, have to go to Little Miss Khazar's day care... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think i fixed most of those issues. I did proof read the article but i might have missed some things. Koala15 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick responses! So that Alan, Goe, and Daved bit was just vandalism, then? Just want to make sure I didn't accidentally delete real information. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is getting close to ready. A few remaining issues:

  • "Although the film suffered negative publicity in the form of two lawsuits against the filmmakers, filed by Lori Madrid and Stanley Mouse respectively, that were ultimately dismissed, Monsters, Inc. was praised by critics and proved to be a major box office success from its release on November 2, 2001, generating over $562 million worldwide.[1]" --two questions about this sentence. First, the later text doesn't seem to support the claim that the film received negative publicity from the two lawsuits. Second, the second lawsuit seems to have been filed a year after the film's release--so why would bad publicity from it have been expected to affect the box office figures? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Claimed" should generally be rewritten as "said" or "stated" per WP:WTA, a GA criterion.
  • "Sully" is misspelled in several places. ("Sulley" is the correct spelling, right?)
  • The three sections (main and two subsections) of "Release" could simply be combined into one section; there's no reason to have a lot of 1-2 sentence sections per WP:LAYOUT.
  • "In US dollars, it is the seventh-biggest fourth weekend ever for a film" -- it confuses me why "in US dollars" is specified here--are there films that have made more money in other currencies? Also, instead of saying it is the "nth-est ever", you might add "as of", since a stat like this could go out of date at any time.
  • The summary of the Lori Madrid trial is somewhat confusing--did she write a story or a poem? The section appears to use the words interchangably. Second, it seems like the article goes into unnecessary detail here (this is an issue under criterion 3b) and in the Mouse lawsuit. The coverage of the lawsuits takes up more of the article than the animation section, the critical response and analysis, etc. Considering that neither lawsuit had consequences of any kind, I'd suggest that both these descriptions be trimmed to about half their current size; the amount of article space they're being given right now suggests that they are the most important aspect of the film, which doesn't seem right.
  • "Over their objections, however, the judge ordered a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction to take place on November 1, 2001" -- why did Madrid and her lawyer object to having this hearing? Isn't it exactly what they were asking for?
  • The image for "Excuse My Dust" needs a better caption. Could you write a better description of what we're looking at?
  • The one-sentence paragraph in the "Stanley Mouse" section should be merged with the previous paragraph.
  • The lead says that the Stanley Mouse lawsuit was dismissed, but this doesn't appear to be discussed in the body. This needs to be fixed so these match up--what is the current status of the Mouse lawsuit?

Thanks again for your work to improve this one, and let me know your thoughts on the above. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the "Excuse My Dust" caption, but i really don't know much about these two lawsuits cause the Lori Madrid lawsuit section is sourced from a book so i can't really find any info on it. I also fixed the US dollars sentence. Though i am not really sure how to go about trimming the lawsuit section. Koala15 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the book either, but I'm happy to summarize what's there in briefer form if you don't object. Tell you what, I'll give it a try and you can revert me if you disagree--sound ok? I'm watching a ball game at the moment but will work on it off and on over the next hour. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've trimmed it down. But it's up to you to do the research for where the Stanley Mouse lawsuit is at--if the lead is wrong, or the body is wrong here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I found a source for the Stanley Mouse lawsuit, i'm not sure if its reliable but it says here "The case was ultimately settled under undisclosed terms.". Koala15 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that'll do; seems like a reputable enough institution. Also, Mouse's lawyer's press release appears to confirm this. [4]. I think adding the Mises source would cover this well enough. Thanks for finding it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else that sticks out to you and needs to be fixed? Koala15 (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the points above cover it for now. I'll take a last glance once these changes are made, and do a few final checks (spotchecks for copyright, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - According to Wikipedia:MOSALBUM#Album_ratings_template, it is frowned upon to have a table of reviews without accompanying prose, as you do in the music section. Also, US and 2000s portals are not needed. BollyJeff | talk 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So do you think we should remove the album ratings template? Koala15 (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to remove it. I thought there was an agreed upon policy against them, but I cannot find that now. At least you should add text and quotes explaining some of the reviews, and the overall acceptance of the album, instead of just having number of stars. BollyJeff | talk 20:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that that would be helpful, though it's probably not strictly needed for the GA criteria (only a few MOS pages are). It's up to you, Koala. The points remaining above (the conclusion of the S Mouse lawsuit, "claimed", the Sully misspellings, etc.) definitely do fall under the GA criteria, though, so don't forget about those. And thanks, BollyJeff, for being another pair of eyes on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok i added the conclusion to the Stanley mouse lawsuit. I changed claimed to stated in the lawsuit section, and i only found one Sulley typo if you noticed anymore i would be happy to fix them. Koala15 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I must have deleted the others while shortening the section; I apologize for not having just fixed the last one myself. (We're sure that "Sulley" is the correct spelling, right?) "Claimed" is still in the article 4-5 times, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i'm sure Sulley is the correct spelling. I just re read the whole article and i only found one claimed, so tell me if you saw any other ones. Koala15 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You can just use your browser's find function. In most browsers, this is CTRL+F. But you're right, I had two false positives by that count. The remaining one is here: "One of the ideas that came out of the brainstorming session was a film about monsters. "When we were making Toy Story", Docter claimed, "everybody came up to me and said 'Hey I totally believed that my toys came to life when I left the room.'" -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok i fixed it. Koala15 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Monsters Inc. 2: Lost in Scaradise

Can we add the inclusion of the planned, but never made sequel? Here's a source for it's inclusion. Npamusic (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

The reference of the infomation about AFI's 10 Top 10 nomination is not valid yet. Please, allow me to change it to this link: [1]. 

Dr.saze (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. 121.127.212.58 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

  1. ^ "AFI's Top 10 Animation Nominees". Retrieved 2016-08-12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsters,_Inc./Archive_1&oldid=1144176773"