Talk:Coraline (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Animation: American Start‑class

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group.

Film will be different from the book!

I was in my local bookstore today & was looking at a special edition of Coraline that had film pics as well as interviews with the director & such of the movie. It was said that the film differs in many ways from the book, which I think should be included in the article somewhere. I don't know if there's anything on the net that can be linked to, so I'm here to ask if someone with more time than I do can look for it. I can understand why it's going to be changed some- the book is awesome, but may not be enough to have a 1 1/2 hour film that's fully fleshed out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Coralinefilm.jpg

Image:Coralinefilm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my seeing it is a source, but I just saw the Hannah Montana 3-D concert and there was a 3-D trailer with it. Don't know if somebody can find a source for this, I don't have time, just putting it out there. Cheers. Slusho42 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop motion?

The article says that the movie is stop-motion (like e.g. The Nightmare Before Christmas). But I just saw the teaser trailer and it looks like its down with 3D computer graphics, like Shrek, and Pixar film, etc. Is that information correct? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the info is correct. They use puppets, not computers.

Computers were used only to erase artifacts of the puppetry, like facial seams, on a frame-by-frame basis. Cernansky (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't think the article should be categorized as a computer-animated film as it is. Agree? Kushboy (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel reality

According to the plot, Coraline enters a parallel reality. But this is not true. For those who have read the book, and seen the trailer, Coraline comes to a forest where the trees exists only as ideas of trees. The further away she comes from the house, the more everything fades away into nothing. Also mentioned in the trailer, it is her other mother who has build it all for her. So we are not talking about parallel realities, but a small pocket of a place outside the known reality that has copied her home and the area around it, as well as the people and animals there, but not so much more. 80.202.40.85 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the director & crew have already said that the film will differ from the book in many ways. It's possible that they're going to call the others' world a parallel reality just so it's easier for the audience (that hasn't read the book) to understand. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Parallel world? It's Faerie. The Other Mother is La Belle Dame sans Merci. I wonder if the Other Father is a palely loitering knight... 67.183.152.101 (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burton?

I had thought Tim Burton had worked on this movie, too, but I didn't see him mentioned anywhere on the article. I can't remember where I heard that, but was it wrong, or why doesn't the article mention him? Mollymoon (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The director of this film, Henry Selick, has worked with Tim Burton, most notably as director of The Nightmare Before Christmas. As far as I know, this is the only Tim Burton connection this film has. The Parting Glass (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did advertise it as from the director of Nightmare Before Christmas - and most people just assume Tim Burton directed that one, so that leads them to think this one is his. I already see premature claims that Burton is directing the film 9, which will be out later this year.99.240.144.112 (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers in Cast Section

Is it really necessary to include spoilers in the Cast section? Couldn't that be confined to the plot section? 216.68.56.218 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but but the cast section looks like it was written by a 14-year-old fan of the book or something. Parts of it are barely readable. 76.99.186.217 (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that it was one of the first things put up on this page, and the fact that it gives a good detailed account of all the characters, I suggest leaving it up. At least until someone comes along and gives a FULL plot summery (With spoilers and full detail) of what happens. --Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the End of the Credits

What does the quote "For those in the know (underlined) Jerkwad" what does it mean? If it has any relevance to the book should we put it in the article? Bassium. —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's part of a contest on the official Coraline website. You have to enter the code at the end of the credits and answer a trivia question about the film to be entered to win a pair of shoes. On the website, look in Coraline's bedroom. Proboscis monkey (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wybie

was wybie in the book? because when i see the characters in the other article, i dont see wybie. was he just a filler for the movie?Haseo445 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Cast section was deleted ( :( ), it mentioned that Wybie is exclusive only to the film, and does not appear, or is even mentioned, in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.159.15 (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

This recent edit is not favorable to some people. The Cast section was tagged for being long, it uses a blog as a reference and the production section lost good information. I don't think the edit is in the best interest of the article; it almost seems fan-fic-ish. I haven't seen the movie, but this topic must be addressed. BOVINEBOY2008 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism interspersed with other issues

It's been hard to separate out some legitimate issues from the vandalism here lately. I just restored some referenced changes to the infobox, production, box office, and reception sections. Perhaps there are legitimate issues with them, but it's hard to tell amidst the vandalism. I know there's an issue about the cast summary; I have no opinion about that so I included two versions in my update, one a bullet list and the other more descriptive (which is commented out). I'd like to have a discussion here about any issues editors have with the infobox, production, box office, and reception sections changes I've tried repeatedly to introduce. Thanks. 68.167.254.221 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comparisons to book

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, "Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan references?

Does anyone know who dropped in all the Michigan references (The Rackham "Bear" fountain at the Detroit Zoo, the father wearing a Michigan State sweatshirt, obviously having attended the horticultural program.) Some of them are rather specific, you'd have to be from Michigan to catch them. Since the original was set in England and the director isn't from Michigan, I'm assuming it's one of the production designers? Jbmcb (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]