Talk:Babe (film)

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

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Nobis, Nathan (2009). "The Babe Vegetarians: Bioethics, Animal Minds, and Moral Methodology". In Shapshay, Sandra (ed.). Bioethics at the Movies. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 56–74. ISBN 0801890772.

Why is it banned in Malaysia?[edit]

That is stupid. Why would someone ban Babe? Ollie the Magic Skater 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the majority of Malaysia is Muslim, and pigs are seen as evil in Islam. 71.31.151.100 (talk 01:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide proof this movie was banned? Like how Memoirs Of A Geisha has a reason why it was banned in China!

24.92.41.95 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does have proof that it was banned.Look on its imdb profile,and in the section of the article titled "Reception".I agree,though,that it shouldn't be banned because the people should be free to make their own desicions,but I'm not in charge of Malaysia.Both Babe movies are banned,and while I think Babe I is an awesome movie,Babe II should be banned 'cause it's too scary for kids and too boring for adults.And by "too",I mean "wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy tttttttttooooooooooooooooooooooooo".Plus,Babe II is horrirble,nothing like the original.But that's not why movies are banned,because it's just personal opinion.MY opinion.

65.0.170.190 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they see the pig as evil because in ancient Egypt the devil Seth sometimes took the guise of a pig. 21 November 2014

Cargill ad[edit]

What is the location of the showground?[edit]

What is the location of the showground with its ornate victorian grandstand it looks a really nice location. It should be mentioned in the article. Lumos3 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible cleanup/touching up?[edit]

This article is informative, but it seems very... dumbed-down. Albino Bebop (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just completed an extensive makeover on this article, not seeing at first the Plot Summary revisions request as a typo - "Ma" - had instantly had caught my eye and I immediately set to such a cleanup of an article about one of my most-loved movies. As well, now seeing this opinion of it, I am in agreement. The very first 2 lines [now Rolled Into One] shouted "clumsy"

[Babe is a 1995 family film that tells the story of a pig of the same name. In this film Babe wants to be a sheep dog.

Babe is a 1995 family film that tells the story of a pig who wants to be a sheepdog.]

and I endeavored to improve that throughout, watching the movie in order to ensure complete plot-summary accuracy and not just correcting any typos. Lines like

Mr. and Mrs. Hoggett are seen talking about Christmas dinner

and

When Mrs. Hoggett leaves town [implying she's gone for good]

just had to go. In redoing the plot summary I hope I did make it more concise as requested, although "overly detailed" to me is more subjective; I removed some things but added a few others! Redbone360619 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add "In Popular Culture" to Babe?[edit]

I can't believe that no-one has put this in.

I'm watching Shrek I, and at 33:30, when Shrek has finished forcing Donkey across a rickety rope bridge, he says "That'll do Donkey. That'll do."

This is a direct allusion to the point in Babe where Hogget says "That'll do, Pig. That'll do."

Further research...all right, Google search...shows that Gilmore Girls had an episode titled "That'll Do Pig" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0588198/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuaho (talk • contribs) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't believe it, because they don't belong. Unless you add a third-party citation noting the connection to Babe, it's original research, and thus will be deleted. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


DVD[edit]

BRIAN OVERTON: Hi. I own the Babe DVD. It's from 1997-1998. I got it at the Hollywood Video in 1498 Metropolitan Ave that is closing. The box says 1998 but the disc says 1997. Put the 1997-1998 DVD in the list of releases on the Babe article. Pleez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.119.71 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animatronic[edit]

Where is the source that some of the animals were animatronic. If no one can give proof of this I will take this off. trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Also what happened to the popular culture section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainfan01 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a cite for an animatronic pig being used, and I see no sign in history of a popular culture section, so I'm afraid I can't answer that question. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re-wording[edit]

I have re-worded the following info "Babe is a 1995 family film that tells the story of a pig who wants to be a sheepdog" to "Babe is a 1995 family film that tells the story of pig of the same name. In this film Babe wants to be a sheepdog." The first one is too short while the second one explains it better. trainfan01 —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Page protected; edit requested[edit]

Please fix the link to pig; it should be domestic pig, or piped like this: pig. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Mike Allen 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lions Club Booth[edit]

The pig is held at, and first meets Farmer Hoggett, a Lions Club booth at the fair. The fair's location is not mentioned, but the booth itself is specifically established. I have inserted this fact of the movie but it was removed. What was the reason for removing this?

How is the fact that it's a Lions Club booth relevant to the plot? Would the film be any different if it was a Masonic Lodge booth, or an Elks Club booth, or a Rotary Club booth? Detail in the Plot section should be limited to what's needed to understand the film. Doniago (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no less relevant to the plot than the breed of dog that chases Babe from the thieves, or the fact that Fly is a Boarder Collie. The director of the film saw fit to establish the booth in his story-telling. It was, by his direction, included in the movie rather than simply having a generic booth. One must assume, then, that it was an element of importance (especially since Boarder Collie and Australian Sheep Dog are never action mentioned in the movie at all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a better argument for removing the items you bring up from the Plot summary than you are for including the Lions Club. Directors do many things with their films, many of them are not important to the plot. Assuming an element is important without specific evidence from reliable sources constitutes original research, and makes the item inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Please stop adding this material unless you can provide a better argument for how it is essential to understanding the film's plot, you appear to be edit warring. Doniago (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only added what you kept removing. You also kept adding back as well. It takes two to edit war. You did not see it fit for my inclusion. I did. I contributed to the greater body of knowledge. By removing the inclusions, the greater body has been diminished. Is the article more, or less, complete now? 


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talk • contribs) 23:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is improved by removing information irrelevant to understanding the plot from the Plot section. Does that answer your question? Additionally, it's not EW when multiple editors agree that edits are inappropriate. I am not the only person who reversed your addition. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was a Lion's Club booth because the director or someone else is a Lion. I don't see where it matters Kielhofer 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

Australian Cattle Dog reference removed.[edit]

Nowhere in the movie, nor credits, is "Australian Cattle Dog" mentioned and there is no credible source to which a reference of the dog's breed used being tied to the movie. The reference to the Australian Cattle Dog was removed and changed to simply "dog" because it is not relevant to the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Doniago (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accents[edit]

Were separate versions released with Australian accents and American accents, or was it released worldwide with the "overdubbing" of American accents? The article seems kind of ambiguous regarding this and it would be nice to make it clearer if anyone knows. -- Dougie WII (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A production decision was taken early on not to locate the film in any specific country or area, and the use of accents reflects this. The actors mostly use their own accents which are a mixture of American, Australian and British. The production design similarly mixes images of American, Australian and British small farm rural life. This works surprisingly well. The article could do with a Production section covering this sort of stuff, but I don't have the knowledge to add it. --Ef80 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work at all. What we have is an English book made into a film in Australia. The setting looks more or less English; but of course due to Coca-Colonisation, mostly actors from an irrelevant country (the US) are chosen so that poor little American moviegoers won't judge the film to be foreign and thus unwatchable. It's American culture being viral, in the worst possible sense of the term. Correctrix (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Does the last paragraph in the reception section really need to be included? It's without source, is poorly written, and is speculative and full of OR.70.248.186.47 (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Reception the article mentions that James Cromwell organized a vegetarian dinner for the "Los Angeles homeless". Was this for the City of Los Angeles homeless or for the Downtown Los Angeles homeless? 21 August 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.211.65 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

This article needs a proper soundtrack section. The recent anon. edits were an attempt in that direction, but had too much trivial information, and was not formatted properly. Such a section is needed, though, and we should discuss that here, rather than on user talkpages. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the anon who created the recent edits, and I'd love to see them used in some proper fashion. My motivation was to share the source of the song that the farmer watches on TV, since I just came across that piece ten years later. I'm not sure how to create a soundtrack section, though. But it is needed for this article. Any advice would be appreciated. - Kevin 147.9.136.251 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, Kevin, why don't you create yourself an account? You'd be much easier to contact, it's easier for you to contribute, and you'd have more standing in the community. Secondly, I've created the necessary track listings and put them in a subspace on my user account. You'll note that there are note sections on each of the listings, and none are filled in. I generally use these to write a little about the annoying lines added over the top of the music (see here, the notes appear as small, bracketed text). I've also not added the writer element, as I don't think it's particularly necessary in this case. You'd probably need to write a little about the release of the soundtrack, its availability, media, and reception (if you can find it). I don't personally have a copy, hence my leaving blank the more detailed sections, but it means someone will have to fill in the gaps (it can go live without some bits, but the more detailed, the better). Anyway, feel free to use the space it inhabits to build the section up collaboratively, I'll dip in as and when I have something to contribute. If you want any more advice on the semantics of constructing a soundtrack section, feel free to stick a message on my talk page. drewmunn talk 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I should have checked in here before restoring the soundtrack details. While I don't agree with User:TheOldJacobite that the information in the former version was trivial, his objection to its list format was worth noting. But no less than four quotations from 19th century French orchestral works are a good deal more than trivial. If someone could find a referenceable comment on the sophisticated use of popular orchestral soundbites, and the way these link to much the same thing in piano accompaniments to silent films, I'd be grateful. To say as much unsupported would count as original research. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been putting it back into place, I've dragged the track listing out of my archive and stuck it in one of my sandboxes (here, in fact). If you want to bring it up to scratch and add it, feel free.  drewmunn  talk  19:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Drewmunn. I'd come across that list online, as well as this site offering long excerpts. There isn't much more that one can say (unsupported, anyway) about the original score. The attraction seems to me the use made of allusion and that's noted by IMDB and also listed at the very end of the CD. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned IMDb, I should point out that it's not considered a reliable source. Happy editing. Doniago (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It's a pity since the IMDB soundtrack information appears to have been taken directly from the CD. I have substituted the reference to that and placed it at the end of the section. The point made in the guidelines about IMDB using nonstandard Chinese transliteration is tendentious. I just spent six months in Taiwan, where no less than four systems were in use. Personally I was happy with Wade-Giles in the past and can see no advance or merit in pinyin. How seriously can you take a system in which two varieties of 'sh' are transliterated as 'x' and 'q'? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a couple of items that were added regarding songs that play during the movie. Without third-party sourcing this constitutes trivia. It may also be worth reviewing WP:IPC. Happy editing. Doniago (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium by Saint-Saëns is heard as background music in the official trailer for Babe. 25 July 2015

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Babe (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Babe (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Babe (video game)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Babe (video game). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 25#Babe (video game) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Could User:Sweetpool50 please outline his or her objections to my recent additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.124 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Editing WP is a co-operative venture. It is considered courteous to leave a summary for every edit, per WP:ES
  2. Messages on talk pages and elsewhere should always be signed, per WP:SIG. This is easily done by typing in four tildes (~) after the message. Failure to do so gives the impression that editors don't know what they're doing.
  3. The edits came to above 700 words, which are the absolute maximum wording per WP:FILMPLOT. There was a message at the head of the section clearly stating this requirement.
  4. For a summary to be useful, it should detail what is being done and why.
  5. Changing to a different server to make the same edits gives the impression of deviousness and warrior behaviour and makes it difficult to assume good faith.
If the editor cares to discuss how their changes would improve this article, naturally they will be considered. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my wording improved the plot summary. Do you have any specific objections to what was added? Do you object to including a review of the movie by Roger Ebert ? It's pretty common on film articles to mention him.
Edit summaries are not mandatory. Per WP:NOTVAND, lack of an edit summary is not considered vandalism and is not grounds for removing an edit. Automatically removing every edit you see that didn't have a summary is not helpful to anyone. It could even be considered disruptive or encouraging edit wars.
It is also courteous to provide a valid reason for removing another's edits. If you use no edit summary as your reason (which you do a lot, looking through your history) then there is no way of knowing whether you were justified or not.
Neither you nor the other editor mentioned the plot word count until you were called out on your actions. Bringing this up now makes it seem like an ex post facto justification. Incidentally, my edits took it ten words over the limit. However, if it's that big a deal then I daresay I can find ten words to take out.
Finally, I cannot change my IP address. If anything, introducing the same edits with a very similar IP address is the opposite of deviousness since it was obviously the same editor. The other address was not blocked, so there was no reason to change it anyway. Perhaps you should assume good faith.

86.146.244.124 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all you're going to do is assert your rightness, and the needlessness of supplying edit summaries, what is the point of discussing matters here? It doesn't contribute to improving WP. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then to put it another way, if I resubmitted my edits with a summary, what would your objection be? 86.146.244.124 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While you were writing the above I looked at the changes and found most of the early ones restored the article to an earlier clarity. I've pasted most of them in, except for "wild" qualifying dog near the end of the penultimate para, which is needless reptition after the earlier mention of feral dogs. A lot of the additions to the final para seemed unnecessarily detailed and unbalancing. The second and third tranche of later changes struck me as WP:OVERLINK. Can we agree so far? Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. How about Ebert's review of the movie? 86.146.244.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that; it was one of the cases where a summary would have been helpful. You could mention Ebert's award of stars, I suppose, but much more is not too useful now the film's popularity is undisputed and continues to score among Rotten Tomatoes critics. Ebert didn't get his details right, either; the film is NOT set in Australia, location is left deliberately vague. Now we've moved a quarter century on, a more contemporary assessment is what to look for, don't you think? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Babe_(film)&oldid=1205580650"