Talk:Shark Tale

Definite recommend?

I was trying to find a better reference for Cinemascore (an empty search box is not a good reference) but instead I found something else. Box Office Mojo reported that according to audience polling conducted by DreamWorks themselves the "definite recommend" was a 75%.[1] PostTrak did not launch until 2013 so I guess before that way back in 2004 studios did pretty much the same kind of audience surveys in house back then, and since we often include PostTrak definite recommend scores for newer films, maybe we should include the definite recommend score here too? -- 109.76.197.58 (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Homosexual propaganda

An editor deleted the phrase Homosexual propaganda saying it does not exist,[2] despite it being clearly sourced, the reference at the end of the sentence actively criticizes that point of view. The phrase Homosexual propaganda is a loaded term, and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so should have been phrased differently. I've made some adjustments to the article so that it now contains one reference to the AFA, and two other references responding to it, from MediaMatters and Americans United criticizing it.

The gay subtext in this film, some reviewers noted it too.[3] That does not mean it wasn't stupid to complain about it, but that also does not mean that people did not complain about it, or that it doesn't exist. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Another editor deleted it again[4] only this time making a more reasonable argument that it was WP:UNDUE to highlight it in the lead. I understand concerns about the phrasing and not wanting to be misleading, but the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and you do not have to agree with the criticism to summarize the Social commentary subsection in the lead. It is strange to summarize the criticism of Italian American stereotypes in the lead but omit the criticism of the gay subtext. Deleting is easy, but rephrasing is more difficult. Perhaps it should be rephrased slightly to make it clearer and state that "Advocacy groups complained" but I don't think it does readers any favors to remove it from the intro. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to treat all complaints equally; that's the whole point of WP:UNDUE: "Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." A number of noteworthy people/groups in the Italian-American community – including a former Congressman and a respected fraternal organization – commented about their perception of Italian-American stereotyping, and DreamWorks responded to them (even if it didn't give them as much as they wanted). By contrast, a single anti-gay hate group that invents controversies as a fundraising model claimed that a vegetarian shark is offensive "homosexual propaganda", and no one outside their mailing list took them seriously. (The review in Premiere identified it as an apparent allegory, but described it as weak, not objectionable.) AFA's staged fainting spell is worth mentioning briefly in the Reception section... that's due weight. But we don't do the readers any favors by misrepresenting their accusation as either a fact or a noteworthy viewpoint, by spotlighting in the lede. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to reject things just because we disagree with the sentiment either. The earlier edit summary complained it was WP:UNDUE but the later edit summary complained about the phrasing, but deleting does nothing to address the phrasing. If you think something has been presented "in Wikipedia's voice" then rephrase it. It may be difficult to get it right but I welcome changes or rephrasing to a more strict wording that editors think would be fair, and I've tried to offer changes and suggestions, but taking the easy option and deleting the text entirely seems like a cop-out. (The review in Premiere did not need to say there was anything wrong with the gay subtext (although by calling it weak he is saying it was poorly written) and I mentioned it in case anyone still thinks the gay subtext is not even there.) JasonAQuest said the statement from the AFA wasn't taken seriously but it was taken seriously and refuted by two groups, Media Matters and Americans United. Again I think it is very strange to include the criticism of the Italian American stereotypes in the lead and not also mention criticism the gay subtext in the lead. If you were arguing both should be removed from the lead the argument of WP:UNDUE would make be more logical, not that I would agree with that approach either.

FWIW I did some digging into the article history and the wording goes back to an edit March 2021[5] and complained of "stereotypes and alleged homosexual propaganda" and somewhere along the way the word "alleged" was deleted. More recently one editor User:Freyn deleted it arguing it did not exist, and now another editor User:JasonAQuest deleted it saying it was WP:UNDUE. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To address the phrasing concerns I would suggest the wording "It was criticized by advocacy groups for its use of Italian-American stereotypes and for its gay subtext". So instead of controversy, say criticism, and make it clearer who was doing it (i.e. not film critics). -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The conservatives may have been on record with complaints but gay rights groups would have been justified to complain about it too. An article from The Harvard Crimson addressed the sheer laziness of Hollywood gay stereotyping in this film.[6] Like an old person trying to be cool, Hollywood attempts to be progressive frequently end up being so weak or wrong headed they fail anyway. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"We aren't supposed to reject things just because we disagree with the sentiment either." That's an incredibly unfair accusation. We also aren't supposed to include things just because we don't see any difference. The Italian-stereotype complaints were more significant. READ WP:UNDUE, at least once, please. Also, the fact that I cite multiple problems isn't because I'm making up new arguments. It's because there are multiple things wrong. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I know and have read WP:UNDUE that is why I said above that it was a more reasonable argument, and I do acknowledge that people see flaws but I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that deleting the text is the best way to improve things. The gay subtext/stereotyping is almost as important as the Italian stereotyping, but they are both among the many flaws of this film, and I see no reason to downplay them. Jason had more than one complaint, and since he said it sounded like it was said "in Wikipedia's voice" then it is not unreasonable to ask Jason to suggest some other better way to phrase it. The emphasis of this discussion is slightly different but there was a previous discussion (see above Talk:Shark_Tale#Validity_of_the_AfL) where an editor said "I strongly believe that their unpopular opinion should be removed" but the unpopular opinion stayed and instead the phrasing was improved to better present it in a neutral way.

User:JasonAQuest might think it is unfair to be skeptical of his motivations but I might think it was weird that someone would follow me to complain about reverting someone else's delete on this article so soon after complaining about my reverting a delete of his on an entirely different article.[7] His criticism is not unreasonable though, which is why although I am skeptical of the person I take the edit in good faith and have tried to rephrase the lead. I think rephrasing not removing is the way to improve the lead and the article.

I don't want to put undue emphasis on the gay stereotyping, I'm happy to mention all the terrible stereotyping in this film, the stereotypes abound. (The product placement was tacky too.) The Boston Globe review of Shark Tale notes the Italian stereotypes calling them "the least of the film's problems" and counters with the African-American stereotyping. The Dallas Observer called the whole thing "kinda racist"[8]. (Need I mention Jamaican stereotypes?[9]) My mentioning other problems, is not to downplay the biggest problem which is that this film is offensively bad. -- 109.79.178.107 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with their stupid opinions, it happened, there is no excuse for deleting it from the article entirely.[10] The American Family Association really did have their stupid opinion and it elicited a response from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. -- 109.76.196.239 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant enough to include in the article based on the current sourcing. ––FormalDude talk 01:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There is really not need to make accusations of edit warring either.[11] User:FormalDude

As for the complaint that all the sources were WP:PRIMARY the reference to the AFA is a primary source yes, but I thought the two other sources in response served as WP:SECONDARY sources.

It is a glaring omission to leave the article without any mention of the gay subtext. It might not be as overtly gay as Frozen (film) but disliking the conservative reaction to it is not a good reason to exclude it from the article. -- 109.76.196.239 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that is fringe as fuck, and it's not going in the article without significantly better sources. ––FormalDude talk 01:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL there's no need for swearing either. The opinion of the AFA that the gay subtext is some kind of a sinister indoctrination is fringe, but the existence of a gay subtext in this film is no theory. (Part of what makes the film so awful is that it and its Godfather parody is aimed far over the heads of children and is too lame to appeal to adults, the gay subtext and cross dressing was likely intended as another weak joke for the adults dragged along to watch this awful dreck. The Today Show said as much ... "intended to keep potentially bored parents entertained with pop-culture references and innuendoes (including the suggestion that Lenny is gay)" [12])

Excluding the stupid opinion of the AFA does not make this a better article. I would prefer to have better sources, I will continue to look. (Gay newspaper Between the Lines (newspaper)/Pridesource.com gave Shark Tale a Grade: C- for the film itself and on the "Kinsey Scale" gave it a 2 for the gay subtext[13].) The gay subtext should be mentioned irrespective of the dumb reaction of the AFA. The Critical response section can and should mention the criticism of the Italian stereotypes and other stereotypes in the film too, including the gay subtext. Expanding the Critical response section is something I will probably get around to eventually. -- 109.76.132.77 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves book sources, here's one:
Jean-Anne Sutherland; Kathryn M. Feltey (Apr 17, 2012). Cinematic Sociology: Social Life in Film (2nd ed.). p. 267. ISBN 978-1412992848. While the issue of Lenny's sexuality is left open in Shark Tale, parallels between stereo-typical representations of gay men and characteristics displayed by Lenny are played on throughout the film
They go on to point out that Hollywood can find a way to add a "love story to almost any plot" and the authors conclude that by doing so (and by Oscar's attitude to Lenny) this film is reinforcing hetrosexual norms.
I tried to link page 267 above, but I get mixed results from Google books, sometimes I only get a snippet, other times I get a preview of the whole page so apologies in advance if the Google books link doesn't work for you (but also WP:SOURCEACCESS). This is separate from the conservative overreaction but it is another source taking notice of the gay subtext and more importantly actually analysing it. -- 109.76.132.77 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

We can say that the film's plot has been viewed as a metaphor for being closeted, but we shouldn't say the film has "gay subtext" unless a reliable source says that. ––FormalDude talk 03:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Vegetarianism as "a metaphor for being closeted" is a specific part of the gay subtext, but discussion of exact wording would be more relevant if there was any mention of it still left in the article. -- 109.76.132.77 (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This topic has been covered in the book Disney, Pixar, and the Hidden Messages of Children's Films here. There seem to be more relevant results in Google Books here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Article for Oscar?

Should Oscar have an article? Did You chop down that shark (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No. WP:GNG. His only significance is as part of this film, there is nothing to suggest that the character is independently notable. Also it is not like this article has an abundance of content that would benefit from being split into a separate article. -- 109.79.175.67 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sea Dragon Asian

Korea Dragon Sequel Future DreamWorks Voice actors Fred Tatasciore Frank Welker Roar Snarl 2400:AC40:620:1C11:DCD2:A1C2:BF5D:A084 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For intro - animated vs. computer animated

There are basically two types of film now, live-action and animated, some films using both in some manner. How something is animated, cell, flash, computer, etc., is a mechanism description which is not relevant to the main fact that it is an animated film, not a live-action one. If how animated is important it can be covered in the production section, otherwise it doesn't matter. The normal way of making animated films has been using computers since about 1995, going on 30 years. It is not the exception anymore that needs to be highlighted as a major part of how a film is described, it is almost pro-forma trivia at this point. Traditional animation is the exception now. Also WP:SEAOFBLUE discouraged adjacent linked terms so things like computer animated comedy film is better described as just "animated comedy film". Animated is not a word that normally needs a link as it has become a common word with well known meaning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Read the text out loud. While technically correct it does not read well and does not make for a better encyclopedia. I agree with Geraldo Perez, it seems unnecessary to emphasize the specific type of animation in the very first sentence. Also "produced by DreamWorks Animation and distributed by DreamWorks Pictures" seems like further unnecessary details for the very first sentence, it is simply an animated feature film from Dreamworks. Details are best left to the Production section. (I have also noticed a recent trend in film articles of editors including specific details about the exact location premiere in the lead section. Only the wide release date is actually worth mentioning, in most cases the premiere date is barely noteworthy, and the specific location of the premiere is not.) More and more information seems to be getting crammed into the lead sections of film articles with due care for weight and relevance. -- 109.79.66.45 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)