Talk:Coraline (film)

Animated

Animation: American / Films Mid‑importance

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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Horror Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EvanFG.

Above undated message substituted from

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 February 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PinkieKitty33.

Above undated message substituted from

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]

Yes, agreed. And also, there's no such thing as "stop motion 3d" as the first phrase of the article states. It's either 3d (computer graphics) or stop motion (physical/real puppets). 217.133.32.138 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A movie can be "stop motion", if you watch the DVD, the animators took two pictures just inches apart to create the 3D effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.179.250 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

care to explain why the movie released in 3d for the first month????

the movie can be edited to be 3d. it doesn't matter if its computer graphics or stop motion. any movie can do it.Haseo445 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movie isnt edited to 3d, its shot in 3d, they used a special camera set up to get the effect. Its done in stop motion with the 3d effect. It's not a computer animated film either, because if you take away the 3d, then its just a stop motion film, and not computer animated. CG clean up doesnt make it computer animated.--72.193.49.194 (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have to edit the screen to place a movie in 3d. i know its stop motin but i'm talking about 3d in theatres AS IN 3D GLASSES. Any movie can make movies in 3d (as in make them especially in 3d glasses). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

What?65.35.180.133 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was a "Parasite Dimension" a term coined by Terry Pratchett to describe a plane of existance latched onto reality. Death's domain, the Hogfather's bone palace etc exist as seperate but small universes that, like a parasite, feed of the host universe. It fits the alternate house Coraline goes to in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.75.226 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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,

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]

Yeah Tim Burton is involved.My best friend loves Tim Burton and said it IS a Tim Burton Movie.--BellaFan262 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're wrong, Tim Burton is not involved, and it's NOT a Tim Burton movie. Do some research and you'll see what i'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.141.200 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Per

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]

This article suggests that the influence of producer Bill Mechanic may be responsible for the more specific touches. Propaniac (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the cast section, it is not writen like an article and describes the characters in a way that seems somewhat unprofessional and full of personality. this article should probably be revised to be completely fact based.

Someone keeps putting it back...its better to be a character section than a cast. becasue technically, the cast will be mentioned anyways. just like anime

ok.....for some reasons you guys listed there voice actors playing the main characters instead of characters and there voice actors at a side.....yea....i'm going to fix this.Haseo445 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop fixing it, i agree, whoever is changing it back, please tell us and your reason. this is about coraline characters, not voice actors of coraline, so the actors must be displayed last, just like every other article has been doing so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys wish to change it, i suggest yo make a table and listing the characters name, and the voice cast next to it. looks much better.Linder1990 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok everyone, i edited the cast to be the characters section and made a table for the new cast section.Linder1990 (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being released in the UK? --86.152.64.188 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 8, 2009. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327597/releaseinfoKjellmikal (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is it ok to say that coraline sometimes calls wybourn "why were you born"?Haseo445 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. She only calls him that once or twice in the movie as an insult. The only nickname that should be mentioned is Wybie. --68.8.206.199 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Movie Database says that this movie had a $35 million budget (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327597/business), but the budget of $70-$100 million listed in local Oregon magazines like the Portland Monthly and Willamette Week seem to be what is cited for the article. Are these more trusted sources than IMDb? Am I missing something here? This seems like a terrific discrepancy, especially if we're trying to properly gauge the film's box-office success later. -UberMan5000 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source at all. Anyone can edit that site who has a user account. Its not a primary source of information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uhh, hello anyone? i wouldnt talk about IMBD like that, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with or WITHOUT and account, so if you continue thinking like this, your probably contradicting yourselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.201.212 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To construct 1 puppet of Coraline, 10 individuals had to work 3-4 months. is a quote taken from imdb. Gives you an idea about the reliability of that source. Fair enough, they give the budget as an estimation. By the way, what does wiki define as budget? The shoot and the post-production or does it also contain the marketing and advertising costs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.99.133 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[previous discussion copied and reconstructed from involved talk pages: (

Reverted back to 101, referenced.

Reverted back to 100, better and more reliable reference. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference is the PAL version (UK); the domain is .co.uk as well.

talk) 05:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to "war", but reverted back. That is a UK reference for the

talk) 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no such thing as a "PAL" version of a film until it comes out on video, as PAL is a video format... film is what is used in theaters, and there is a big difference between the two formats. Sorry to come across catty, but if you're going to throw around claims like that, you should at least know what you're talking about. And also, if this were actually a PAL difference as you are claiming (and I don't know why I'm even indulging this misguided claim), the time discrepancy would be much closer to 4% of the total runtime resulting in a time of about 96 min. This film is identical in the UK and US, as the 100:20 runtime I recorded was measured in a U.S. theater. Why are you so attached to the 101 time, as, aside from it being wrong, it appears very few major sources actually cite that as the runtime.... –Fierce Beaver (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one theory on why some sites might be reporting a 101 min. runtime as opposed to the true 100 min. runtime. Before most 3D movies, an additional title card is shown for 10-20 seconds informing viewers to put on their 3D glasses. Since the movie was already approximately 100:20 long, these additional few seconds, if included as part of the runtime, might be enough to bump it past 100:30, thus resulting in the runtime being rounded up instead of down. When I measured the time as 100:20, I did not include this extra bit as it is not truly part of the movie itself... more a helpful reminder from the theater/studio. My guess is some sources may have started the clock the moment that card hit the screen, instead of waiting for the film itself to begin with the first studio logo. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we list "~100" or "~101" or 100.5 along with two references for each of 100 & 101?

talk) 01:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that doing so is overkill. Eight references are provided for "100 min." is overkill, too. I think we should just have it at "100 min." with one reference (The New York Times, perhaps) and leave it at that. It is a specious matter; we can be doing so much more on Wikipedia with our time! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sorry for the delayed response here. I would be amenable to the 100.5 approach, but would ultimately prefer to reach a consensus on which time is appropriate to use and stick with a single whole number, since I'm almost completely sure there is only one version of the film. The problem with the fractional approach is that I'm pretty sure it's standard practice for film articles to round times to the nearest minute as opposed to attempting to display the time to to a more precise figure, and editors unfamiliar with the reasoning behind that choice would likely just round it when they saw it. Also, citing two sources with conflicting runtimes could possibly be confusing for a reader who actually follows the refs, and could potentially set a bad precedent for other articles. I don't know how familiar you are with this sort of issue, but from lots of empirical evidence, I've found that many, many otherwise reliable sources frequently list incorrect and/or conflicting runtimes for movies, and often with differences much greater than just 1 minute, which led me to believe that a lot of these reviewers don't actually time films themselves and instead just copy times from other sources, which apparently provide incorrect information much more frequently than one might imagine. In fact, that is part of the reason I began timing films myself in the theater a couple months ago. For example, here is a sampling of three recent films that had a wide variety of conflicting runtimes listed on reputable sites that most people would otherwise consider "reliable":

• Knowing
  • NY Times overview: 121
  • Boston Globe: 115
  • San Francisco Chronicle: 122
  • Orlando Sentinel: 120
  • Chicago Tribune: 115
  • direct timing in U.S. theater: 121:17
  • BBFC: 121:20
• Paul Blart: Mall Cop
  • NY Times overview: 87
  • NY Times review: 90
  • Washington Post overview: 91
  • Washington Post review: 90
  • Boston Globe: 88
  • San Francisco Chronicle: 87
  • direct timing in U.S. theater: 90:52
  • BBFC: 90:46
• Notorious
  • NY Times: 122
  • Washington Post review: 100
  • Washington Post overview: 103
  • L.A. Times: 123
  • San Francisco Chronicle: 120
  • direct timing in U.S. theater: 122:48
  • BBFC: 122:47

As you can see, many of these top-tier newspapers list widely varying runtimes for the same movie, and in some cases, they do not even report the same time between two pages from the same site! That, to me, indicates they should not be considered reliable sources for runtimes. However, observe that the times I recorded directly in the theater (in the U.S.) always correspond almost exactly with the times scientifically measured and reported by the BBFC. In fact, in the six months I've been recording runtimes for just about every movie released in the U.S., I can only recall two instances where times I measured differed significantly from those reported by the BBFC, and one of those was for Taken, which was re-edited for its U.S. release to achieve a PG-13 rating. Therefore, I consider the BBFC to be the go-to source for referencing theatrical runtimes, and I am very distrustful of any other source — even otherwise reputable newspapers — because of their long track record of listing incorrect runtimes. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; and the BBFC lists Coraline 100m 47s, which is 101m rounded

talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For the record, I also think we are investing entirely too much time into this small matter but kudos for your extensively researched homework Beaver... someone give this man a medal

talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

R3ap3R, that brings us back to my previous theory... that some measurements might be including the "Put on your 3D glasses" screen as part of the runtime for the 3D version. I had missed this before, but the BBFC actually classified the film twice, one day apart, for both the standard film and 3D versions. Since my 100:20 measurement was made on the 3D version, but omitting the 3D reminder card, I am inclined to believe that this was the difference between the two versions the BBFC classified. I guess the question should be: "should the 3D glasses reminder screen be included as part of the runtime?" Obviously my opinion is no, since omitting it results in the same runtime for both versions of the film. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the cast is not being mentioned briefly, you guys are mixing the characters WITH the cast. a cast is merely a table since the movie is an adaptation, not an original. SO i will remove the characters and replace it with a cast table. there should be no description of the characters in the table in the cast section. Its called CAST, not CAST AND CHARACTERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the cast and character mix up, but would like to ask on the editing of the Release section. The first time I came to read this article, There was a aequel mentioned, and now it's gone. There was no reference given, and no where to find this information. To whomever wrote it, if anyone knows and can ask, where exactly they came up with this, for many people are beginning to ask and are a bit upset whether it's true or not. As of now, it is only a rumor caused by this article. Now there's no proof of that either except the printscreen version I took for reference. Melancholicnostalgia (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was no reference to the sequel therefore it had to be removed. for now its a rumor unless they finda proper source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the page: "A 2-disc DVD of the film including a digital copy and the 3-D version will be released. The digital copy will not be in 3-D."

Could some people think it implies that the 3-D version could be analog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgelulu (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the DVD Release section should be titled Home Media due to the fact that the film will be released on Blu-ray Disc as well as DVD. Blu-ray is not DVD and therefore I do not believe that the section should be titled DVD Release. Suttna08 (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is a fairly standard title when the film is released on more than just the DVD format, not sure why Montana's Defender reverted it back. "Media" shouldn't be capitalized though. -

talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The link goes to a redirect page which sends you straight back to the Coraline article or to super mario brothers. I don't know how the identity of the other mother is known to be the Belle Dame, I have not read the book. However, the link should surely go to the article on la Belle Dame sans Merci or go somewhere where the identity is explained - a closed loop is no good.Stainless316 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does La Belle Dame have to do with the Beldam? I understand the name resemblance, but the book's article says beldam is merely "an archaic word meaning 'hag/witch'." There must be something else I'm not getting. Could someone clarify this for me? --68.8.206.199 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed when I saw the movie that it was a reference to

La Belle Dame Sans Merci, where the 'villain' (known only by 'La Belle Dame') tricks people into following her to her home using lust and gifts of exotic fruits, where they are trapped and wither away forever. Despite the protagonist in the poem being a chaste medieval knight, there are a few similarities. 90.198.74.32 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

99.233.146.36 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Yep - see here for more info http://circusmice.tumblr.com/post/35738719484/the-ghost-childrens-name-for-the-other-mother-is[reply]

There are tons of different kinds of glasses. Some of us are getting secondhand copies or have lost our glasses and need to buy replacements. Article should indicate the types of glasses required.

Does anyone know why they use the green-magenta

anaglyph instead of the more common red-cyan? Xenan (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The character information about Coraline and Wybie says that the two have a crush on each other? I really don´t think so....I mean they´re just friends. I think there is no sign of a crush in the movie, or am I getting something wrong? I mean, yes, the other Wybie gave her a rose, but not the real one. Please correct me if I´m getting something wrong, I just don´t think he has a crush on her and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.135.224.244 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They show no signs of a crush. Can someone remind the shippers what a fact is? =P --68.8.206.199 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the end of the movie it looks like Coraline is still displeased at seeing Wybie in the garden. [[User:Neoshadow1billion]] (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Neoshadow1billion[reply]

For me, the article totally underrepresents the horror movie characteristics of the film. I call for a section "criticism" in which positions on its unsuitability for children are mentioned. I would like to add such a section soon, please post your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspostloch (talk • contribs) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The horror aspect was not a large debate, as I see it, and does not need to be included. There could, however, be a mention of the controversy in the Reception section. --68.8.206.199 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His blue skin is likely due to his time as a

Liquidator, for which he wears a Hero of Chernobyl medal on his "wife beater".(Henry Selick (Director). Coraline DVD Commentary. Event occurs at 00:25:00. {{cite AV media}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help

))

This is notable (he is, afterall, blue) and a citation was provided. The edit was reverted without rationale, so I have put it back in. -- Autopilot (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FIES and let's discuss what you don't like about the addition. -- Autopilot (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It should be mentioned that the Other Bobinsky's circus tent appears larger at the interior than the exterior. --PJ Pete 22:12, April 16 2010 (UTC)

99.233.146.36 (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC) On the DVD commentary, Henry Selick said that Bobinsky was blue because he was outside all the time.[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} In the plot section it refers to the Other Mother as "the Belle Dame" while in the character section, and in the book's page (and the book), she's called "the beldam". Could someone change the plot section to "beldam" so the article is consistent? 203.217.150.69 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books and films aren't necessarily consistent; in the credits to the film, is the title "Belle Dame" or "beldam"? What about the subtitles, what do they say? Josh Parris 11:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done done, beldam seem to be correct term to use (movie credits that I find on imdb and elsewhere also refer to her as such)1.

Wikified first term of it so that people can see the definition (left wikified version further down that was already there). James (T|C) 11:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Coraline Jones is a girl about elevenish.She is getting tired of no one listining to her or careing. One day she finds a small door in her house and then at night decideds to go in it fainds another world to explore but she dosn't know that the other mother is planning to make Coraline stay there forever so the other mother can eat up her life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.12.81 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

 Done, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a picture of Caroline with brown hair in the movie. We can safely assume she dyed it then. Does that still count as a hair color change? 98.14.8.54 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the Finnish wikipedia entry to the menu. Since this page is protected I'm unable to do so myself. --FnH (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through, but I noticed that the article states at one point that it made $129 million in the States, and at another point claims the movie made over $75 million. So I don't know which is correct, though I assume it's the second one. I won't make any changes or anything, but somebody should really fix that. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.38.254 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nope, I screwed up; it says the film made $192 million worldwide and then says it made $123 million worldwide. Sorry for the mi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.38.254 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visually this movie could not have been made without the style of Tim Burton lurking in the background. This must have been mentioned in the reviews. The article, in spite of its detailed repetition of the plot, for which our book reviews were returned to us for rewriting in 3rd grade, seems incomplete without any mention of Burton's influence.--Wetman (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary says: "received an Academy Award and Golden Globe nomination for Best Animated Feature". This is a bit ambiguous since you can receive an Academy Award and an Academy Award nominations, so it is unclear whether it received an Oscar or a nomination (in fact, it did not receive an Oscar). To clarify: "... received an Academy Award nomination and a Golden Globe nomination for ...". Justin464 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film's consensus reads "With its vivid stop-motion animation combined with Neil Gaiman's imaginative story, Coraline is a film that's both visually stunning and wondrously entertaining." Gamergrant (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DJAMP4444 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Millahnna: Hello. I disagree with your reasons for reverting my plot edit. Some of your claims about my edit are even outright untrue. Perhaps we can come to some happy medium. Your edit summary exactly reads as follows "WP:FILMPLOT - revert plot bloat that included dialogue quotes, overly flowery language, "film does this" language, etc." Although I included what I perceive as helpful additions, I don't see how this constitutes a "plot bloat", seeing as I stayed within the 700-word recommended maximum. As for the "dialogue quotes", I added in exactly zero additional quotes, leaving the very same ones that were already present (and in fact shortening one of them), so this is simply untrue. Next, can you please point out the "overly flowery language" I added? WP maintains a level of formal language, but I'm pretty sure I didn't get excessively sesquipedalian (now that word is certainly flowery). Words like "eccentric" and "burlesque" are really all I can find that might be interpreted as flowery, though I'd argue they are specific and clarfiying. If there are more common terms you'd prefer, I'd be happy to substitute those. Can you tell me where it is suggested that "film does this" language should be avoided (I believe you, I'd just like to see where to find that). Finally, I also made helpful mechanical edits that you ignored; for example, the plot uses "ragdoll" and other times "rag doll". Wouldn't it be better to be consistent? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance; I'm in a bit of a hurry. If it comes off rude, I don't intend it to be such. It was over 800 words; we make exceptions for length in some cases, though I doubt this film would be one of them. "Film does this" is not mentioned in any specific guideline or rule. It's just something that I personally have noticed rarely adds clarity, merely length. "The film begins with" (which is not specific to your edit, just my go-to example) is no way to start a plot summary. Good eye on the "rag doll" vs. "ragdoll" issue, though. It's been awhile since I checked up on this one, so I hadn't noticed. I think you're right that there's a way to incorporate some of the polish in your edits and still keep the length about where it is now. This one has been riding the line of the 700 words for years so it's a bit challenging to add things to it.

Any editors who've been keeping a more recent eye on the page want to weigh in? Millahnna (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not come across as rude. Actually, I must apologize, because I miscounted. You're right: It does exceed the length guideline. Perhaps I can try for another edit and run it by you soon. Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried for an edit that keep my basic changes but lowers the word count below the maximum. See if you prefer that. Wolfdog (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coraline (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208140722/http://wweek.com/editorial/3513/12165 to http://wweek.com/editorial/3513/12165/

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.

• 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) 01:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coraline (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090424082907/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/7af591781e6867a4802575460031e934?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/7af591781e6867a4802575460031e934?OpenDocument

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.

• 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) 13:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

v — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.118.230 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🥲 185.194.187.249 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 June 2023 and 18 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melody12445 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ugee123 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🥲😢It iş fantastic 159.146.43.62 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Efernandezkim (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bstuger (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]