Talk:One Hundred and One Dalmatians/Archive 1

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)

Original aspect ratio

There is no mention in the article of the original aspect ratio/projection of the movie. The Platinum 2-Disc Edition DVD came out this week and merely mentions it is in "Full Frame (1.33:1) Ratio".. Was it originally this way or in some form of widescreen. And also of the new DVD release is it Anamorphic? (It doesn't mention it on the DVD box.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kona1611 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 March 2008

IMDb claims that it was shot in 1.33:1 ratio, but "designed to be matted to a ratio of 1.75 for widescreen-equipped theatres". If that's accurate (they don't say where the information comes from), I guess that means the DVD release doesn't cut off any part of the original frames. 62.181.255.64 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2008 (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.

AnmaFinotera (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. AnmaFinotera (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." AnmaFinotera (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? AnmaFinotera (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?? AnmaFinotera (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 AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would elicit a comment. :) :) :) Lighthope (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic-year headers

03-April-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added to the bottom, not top. As typical, I had to move/sign a new topic "Original aspect ratio" (05Mar08) into the bottom 2008 part. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undone that as it was completely inappropriate. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First Animated Film Set in the Present Day?

What about Lady and the Tramp, or even Bambi? 69.114.0.234 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No date was given for Bambi and Lady and the Tramp was set in the early 20th century. (Note the clothing style? Possibly the 20s.) They also used a mix of motor cars and horse drawn carriages. Lighthope (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems a ludicrous assertion to me. There were thousands of animated films made before 1961. Were none of them set in the (then) present day? What about all the Tom and Jerry cartoons? Rachel Pearce (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the editor meant the first Disney animated film to be set in the present day. Lighthope (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Dumbo supposed to take place in the present?65.0.184.39 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the movie gives any reference as to when it takes place. As there are no city scenes (ASAIK), it's difficult to place the movie. Lighthope (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Expert cleanup

03-April-2008: I have edited for basic cleanup, such as putting quotation marks where song titles had been italicized, plus fixing grammar and commas. The section "Characters" has been tagged for re-formatting per Wikipedia-film MOS, and I moved the "expert-subject" tag into the section "Production" since the techniques could be sourced faster by film experts. The top priority for basic cleanup has been to reduce and lower those top tag-boxes which scream horrors at the reader, when the truth is that most of the article is quite good. I wish there were an easy way to prevent tag-box templates from being placed at the top of articles, since most are grandstanding vanity-boxes that rant about trivial issues. Anyway, the 2 major issues for cleanup are:

• putting reference footnotes about Production techniques; and
• reformatting section "Characters" per Wikipedia-film MOS.

If additional tag-boxes are needed, please try to limit them to particular sections, because the top vanity-boxes, screaming for attention, make Wikipedia articles look worse than they really are: when adding footnotes, I've found that Wikipedia articles have been typically 95% accurate before source footnotes were added. The real problem has been hidden vandalism, which often goes 2 months undetected in obscure areas. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also undone your tag removal. Your person views against tags, which are not "vanity boxes", are irrelevant. Both of those are issues regarding the entire article, not just sections. Tags go at the top, and will remain there until the issues are actually addressed. If you don't like the look, fix the issues themselves. I left notes above detailing why I tagged as I did so there is plenty of explanation to start with. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as vandalism, I have been watching both the 101 Dalmations page and the Bambi and Bambi II pages for those as both those movies are my favourites. (Collectonian can attest to how protective I am about 101 Dalmations at least. Hahahahahaha!) But the article can use some reworking. I know quite a lot about the movie and its assorted facts, but I don't have the article expertise or time to devote to a full rewrite. I am afraid I have to leave that to someone else. Lighthope (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the justification for the "expert" tag on the article? Except for some citations needed (which is already tagged for), the article seems to present a fair amount of information. (Though I'd like to see the Production section expanded.) Justify or tag will be removed. Lighthope (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Significance section

The "Significance" section is extremely poorly written. Firstly, it should be put into a paragraph for rather than a list. Secondly, many things listed to "help" Disney are just mere facts that should be put in a trivia section or removed completely. (Such as the number of spots the dogs have. How the HELL does that financially help Disney after Sleeping Beauty's letdown?) Really, the section should have a complete rewrite. :P 67.186.131.2 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'll agree the total #spots has little to do with Disney's surviving (nor the 12 hour breeding cycle or average litter size), the standard number of spots per puppy undoubtedly made it easier (hence cheaper) to animate, since it wasn't necessary to count them each time.TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the number of spots was related to the character. Puppies had 32 because they were small. Perdita had fewer spots than Pongo because they thought it made her look more feminine. (No, really. That was the reason.) Lighthope (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the info about the spots, but put it into the production section where it is more appropriate. I don't like deleting information from an encyclopaedia. Rather than delete things, find a way to incorporate instead. Lighthope (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-writing the article

Hello friends,

I'm currently re-writing this entire article; please feel free to check out my sandbox to see how it's shaping up, or message me with any comments or suggestions.

Thanks, The no erz (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Three unused songs

I have a 70's LP with three songs from 101 Dalmations: Playful Melody, Cruella de Vil and Dalmation Plantation, and none of these versions appear in the film nor in the DVD extras. Does anybody know why these versions exist and what they were used for? The Cruella de Vil version is performed by a rock and roll sounding band, almost sounds as if Roger had been jamming with some music friends. The Dalmation Plantation and Playful Melody are older sounding songs with feminine voices.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The latter two do appear in the animated film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the latter two songs do appear in the film, but they are not the versions I have. The versions I have are completely different, see the descriptions I wrote.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not unusual for soundtrack versions. Could be the versions that ran in the credits, or they just re-recorded them for that LP. It isn't that uncommon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Budget

I notice that the budget is claimed to be 4 million dollars. Where does this number come from? If it is confirmed, we also know the budget of The Sword in the Stone pretty accurate, since it is said to be 40% less than One Hundred and One Dalmatians, according to the book about Walt Disney, by Neal Gabler. 84.210.60.115 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

rotoscoping

"...Rotoscoping, a technique formerly used for tracing live action human characters into animated drawings, became less important."

Disney has always denied using rotoscoping, on the basis that tracing the figures produced stiff-looking animation. (The Fleischers -- who invented rotoscoping -- used it often, and it's sometimes painfully obvious.) I'm inclined to believe Disney. Unless the author has proof, I suggest that this sentence be removed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding...

To achieve the spotted Dalmatians, the animators used to think of the spot pattern as a constellation. Once they had one "anchor spot", the next was placed in relation to that one spot, and so on and so on until the full pattern was achieved. All total, 101 Dalmatians featured 6,469,952 spots, with Pongo sporting 72 spots, Perdita 68, and each puppy having 32.

This isn't right. 72 + 68 + 32*99 = 3308, which is a much smaller number. Georgia guy (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it refers the total amount of appearances of a spot/spots in every frame of animation of the entire film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.214.51 (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Typos

Aagh! Hasn't anyone noticed the many misspellings in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.114.97 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the Muses from 101 Dalmatians (1961)?

The Muses are not seen in 101 Dalmatians (1961), they were featured in Hercules (1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

This film is considered to be one of the most cherished Disney films ever made, but your summary of the critic reviews made it sound like it got all negative reviews. Please see to it that this page acknowledges the film is beloved by many critics and audiences alike. 24.146.29.238 (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Colonel

Acording to the entry of Catalan Sheepdog it is not an Old English Sheepdog but a catalan sheepdog. If it is true, as it appears by seeing the pictures of both sheepdogs, please, modify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto Barcelona (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's also narrated by the bloke from the jungle book: http://www.moviefone.com/2011/01/27/101-dalmatians-facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.120.64 (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)