Talk:Horton Hears a Who! (film)

Please go to

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.

Can I remove the trivia section? The information in this section is irrelevant to the article. EwanMclean2005 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. One of the entries is "Ned's fish resembles the fish from The Cat in the Hat." This is very needless, because you'd find the resemblance to the Cat-in-the-Hat fish in ANY Dr. Seuss book.

Is it me or is the plot the entire text of the actual book? Is this legal? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Legality aside, the plot is waaaaay too long and desperately needs an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.99.11 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened it.--Patrick (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if he is an Eagle, but he really does not look that way. He looks like a vulture. Look at real life

He's not an eagle. Referred to as a buzzard here [1] and a vulture here [2] --Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it.--Patrick (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, in the original book, vlad (looks like a vulture) is referred to as a "black bottomed eagle". Refer to Horton Hears a Who, by Dr. Seuss --Breton Slivka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.166.195 (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters section repeatedly states that Jojo is a teenager, which I don't believe was ever confirmed in the film (it would also be impossible, unless Whos breed like rabbits). It also fails to mention that he's "the smallest Who of all", which was a major part of his role.

Katie can't actually fly. Midway through the film, Horton remarks that the more full he is of air the lighter he will be (while crossing a rickety bridge), and a scene follows where he appears to be floating. The end of the movie, where it shows Katie floating through space, was making fun of this. They're insinuating that Katie takes in enough air (by saying 'ah') over the course of the film that she floated away.

--Marshmello 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that one of the themes is religion. I could just be looking too far into it, but when Sour Kangaroo says that it doesn't exist unless you can see it, feel it, or smell it, or whatever she said exactly, it was a thing about religion. Just a thought of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerhollen (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's original research and doesn't belong in a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.180.23 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it should, I just wanted to make a comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerhollen (talk • contribs) 03:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you are wrong! For example: Both worlds and both protagonists are equal and the jungle is no heaven and the clumsy elephant is no god. There was definitely no religious underlying theme intended and there was also no fundamentalist pro-life theme intended with the phrase "a person's a person, no matter how small". There are clear statements from Dr. Seuss himself and after his death from his widow, that they "doesn't like people to hijack Dr. Seuss characters or material to front their own points of view". The story is just about anti-isolationism (for the USA today more important than ever ;) and tolerance for different races, cultures and views.

Not sure how valuable this comment is in a discussion of "underlying themes", especially since this is the article about the film. Refer to

Intentional Fallacy. You can debate the merits of an interpretation, but saying flatly that someone is wrong when they state their opinion is counterproductive to your own argument. The editor is very clear that comments were "thoughts" meant for the talk page only. Also, if you're going to take it upon yourself to speak for someone else, please cite a source, and always please sign your comments. Opusaug (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Mr.troughton (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not neccesary. I don't think Wikipedia changes their articles 'just for giggles'

While being bombarded with bananas's, Horton mentions he 'loves the smell of banana's in the morning', a nice reference to Apocalypse Now --195.169.225.32 (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I jujst removed the DVD/Blu-Ray release section due to some research I did. It had no references for the date of the release, and I tried to find one for it. I only found a september release here.... Can anyone verify that the previous edit was correct? Edit I made is located here: [3] Stealth (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a new release date for the DVD. December 9th?! December?! What happened to DVDs being released like 3 months after the theatrical run?!?!? People will have forgotten about this by then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.51.213 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So who voices the chairman in this movie. Rodimus Rhyme (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While searching, I noticed there's another article titled "

The article was originally a redirect. I took the liberty of reverting it back so it redirects back here. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is badly lacking a section which identifies the key differences/changes from book to film. How much of the story is in the book, which characters (eg: Morton isn't), etc. That's certainly what I came to this article after seeing the film to find out, as I haven't yet read the book. Genedecanter (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such sections should be avoided, as they are considered to

original research. Unless, that is, there are sources explaining why the filmmakers decided to dis/include certain scenes. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps it needn't be a separate section, but since this film is an adaptation of a book then info about the adaptation, how faithful, what has been added/changed etc. is surely highly relevant, and of great interest to most readers. Agreed it ought to be sourced from interviews/DVD bonus features or similar so as to avoid being OR, but without this info the article feels incomplete. Genedecanter (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it is an important part of the information about this film. The article is missing a development section, which is where this information would most excellently fit. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Horton Hears a Who!(soundtrack). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 13#Horton Hears a Who!(soundtrack) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]