Talk:Over the Hedge

Clarification

I've seen Pom Poko, and I've seen Over the Hedge.

The Tanuki seen in Pom Poko really aren't anything like RJ the raccoon, and both films have extremely different plots and messages...so I'm wondering what the "striking similarities" between the two mentioned in the article are?

• I started to think about 'Pom Poko' when I watched the first 20-30 minutes of the film, but as 'Over the Hedge' did not turn into an environmentalist or anti-suburban film (or at least not explicitly) I think the similarities end there. I've gone and made a slight change and put an additional sentance comparing the two films, edit as necessiary. --Black Orpheus 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned In China?

Is this really banned in China? I could not find any information relating to a ban on the internet, and the movie's official site shows up on google.cn.

Suggested Trivia

William shatner is on the cast list. As spock, his middle name was Tiberius. Tiger the Housecat is supposedly from "Tiberia." Relation?

Pros: William shatner has a role, Tiberia does not exist.

Cons: This is possibly just dumb luck, Shatner does not actually play Tiger. -Clockh8r, 5/28/'06

Uh... William Shatner played James Tiberius Kirk, not Spock - 69.171.34.159 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Differences?

It seems the only similarites between the strip and the film are R.J.,Verne and Hammy/Sammy.The skunk,the oppossums and the porcupines do not show up on the strip,as far as I know.Nor do R.J. and Verne's girlfriends and Verne's nephew appear on the film. - R.G. 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Useless trivia?

• Hammy uses innuendo when saying "has anyone seen my nuts?" and "I found my nuts!".

Am I the only one who thinks this is completely useless? -- Gromreaper 11:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivial, even? -- Ianiceboy 12:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

More useless trivia - How about the "animals featured" part, does anyone care that a dragonfly was seen once? Or the bee?, that has got to go. --Mbatman72 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Added a couple of bits

I added a couple of sentences - one about the gang calling the hadge Steve :-P and the other with a quick reference to Hammy's constant hyperactivity. 84.9.73.64:80 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I added that Tiger also joins the family of foragers; he is seen in the snapshot at the end with Stella and it can be assumed that they are at least going to try and make it together. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Box office stats:

According to the article:

The film's opening weekend grossed $38,457,003 in 4,093 theaters. As of July 19th 2006 the film had earned $239,307,057 worldwide.[3]

Is that good? I don't know. How much did it cost to make.

Comment by Anon: I don't know how much it costed to make the movie. But $239,307,057 is amazingly great!

The current article makes the statement that the film is among Dreamworks lowest ranking movies. This is inaccurate as there have been 21 movies released by Dreamworks and it is ranked #12 with over 300+ million, which is actually in the middle rankings and not near the lowest at all. Also at 80 million it was one of the cheaper as compared to the 130 million cost of Mega Mind which ranks below it. This makes it one of the more profitable of the Dreamworks releases. This statement should be removed or edited as it is clearly inaccurate, the authors personal opinion, and contradictory. Simply checking the Wikipedia page for Dreamworks itself verifies this. Opinion should not be construed as fact in making entries. 209.97.80.205 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Sam

GOt it... THanks for the heads up. Millahnna (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Character Articles

Ok I'd like to suggest character articles be made for this

I'm disappointed by the lack of information abou the minor characters but, if Ozzie and Heather (who despite father and daugther are very opposite in personalities) were put together in one info, why are Penny and Lou (who have nearly identical personalities) put each one with their own info? And let's remember that is a character info. Physical and psychological info about the characters should be writed in there, not theirs "scenes" in the movie (unless it has obviously to do with the character development through the movie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.49.238 (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Innacuracies Section?

It is true...real animals do not act the way the film portrays.

Nor do they speak with midwestern accents, play video games, drive cars, or develop super-speed when given energy drinks.

It is a cartoon animal fantasy film, not a nature documentary.

I confess to wondering why the sections on Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, and other animal cartoon characters do not nitpick the lack of "realism".

Why? Because it is a cartoon, of course.

Puffy Treat 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding the anthromopporphic parts would be TOO nitpicky, but non-anthropomorphic parts should be stated. By the way, the following films all have Inaccuracy sections: Dinosaur, Madagascar, The Wild, Ice Age, Ice Age 2, Open Season The Land Before Time. So I don't think why there shouldn't be inaccuracies. Some people DO take cartoons seriously even if YOU don't! Dora Nichov 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How does pointing out that a cartoon fantasy film uses...well...fantasy, and labelling that "inaccuracy" equal "taking it seriously"?

198.252.245.195 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean some people may take cartoons too seriously and believe whatever they see. Hard to believe, but true. Dora Nichov 10:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, an "Innacuracies section" isn't really logical, as this is just a cartoon. Verne has teeth, that's to give him a form of personification. Many cartoony depictions of turtles have toothed mouths instead of toothless ones. Verne escapes out of his shell like a koopa would, while real turtles can't as they have it built into their skeletons. It's just a cartoon! However, an innaccuracies section in a movie that is not supposed to be a cartoon and is based off of real stuff, like "Dinosaur", an innaccuracies section is okay (in my opinion). Just pity the people who usually take cartoons way too seriously. Giant Blue Anteater 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, some inaccuracies like animals can't talk are simply too obvious, but others are definitely worth mentioning. The notion that turtles can slip out of their shells in a common misconception for example. Dora Nichov 09:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this isn't really a documentary, which tries to be accurate, I was thinking about the section being renamed to something else, like "Factual Accuracy".

That's an idea... Dora Nichov 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a cartoon. Should everything be politically correct or just plain make sense when telling a "fictional" story that "children" would enjoy more so than adults? Sometimes I wonder if people have issues with Toy Story simply because "toys dont ever come alive" Neofcon

Still... Dora Nichov 01:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And the comment about "some people do take cartoons seriously" are you refering to people who have had issues with actual OFFENSIVE shows such as south park and the boondocks, or are you talking about actual morons who think entertainment should get everything straight about reality? It's a kids film. When they grow up they will realize that everything they see in movies are not real, but kids have a right to use their imagination. Neofcon

It's still worth noting though. Dora Nichov 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WHO THE HECK CARES?? It's just made for fun!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.52 (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Parody section

Perhaps we should have a section where we can list parodies / cultural references in the movie rather than keeping them in the trivia section which has grown fairly large containing a lot more than just this. I noticed a few that's not currently listed but I'm reluctant to add them because I don't want the trivia section to grow further. Debolaz 14:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I put up a modified page in my user area. Does anybody object to moving these things? Debolaz 12:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell. What was modified?

Note: I've bringing a couple of the footnotes up to Wiki WP:CITE standards. Please, all, do not use put the URL. They can go off the page, as they do here, but more importantly, footnotes are supposed to cite the actual source. Please see my corrections for example. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved some stuff from trivia to a new section, "Parodies and references". While we still need to clean up trivia further, I think moving this stuff is a good start. Debolaz 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary Length

IMHO, the summary is way too long. It has way too many details, even dialogues. It should be shortened. --perelly 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I heartily concur. When I first read this article, I was overwhelmed by the length, density, and verbosity of the summary. This isn't a summary; it's the Readers Digest condensed version! Somebody get the Over-the-Hedge-clippers. --BlueNight 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas the tank engine section

I don't understand why this section is there, or what it means. It seems like an irrelevant list of characters. If someone knows why it is there then mention something here, but I'll delete it otherwise. They can revert it if it is important.

(edit: had to sign in) Adam850 09:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia?

Okay this aritcle got a "too much trivia" tag. The Shrek and Shrek 2 article split things up. We need sections like: "Parodies and jokes" "References to other films and media" (Shrek 2 has well over 70 "References" listed with no tag, while this article has under 50 "Trivia"s and it gets tagged). This way there isn't "too much trivia" and that tag can be removed. Antmusic 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From a quick glance, both the Trivia and Inaccurracies section seem to collectivly be too large - sometimes including things that aren't "trivial", such as the movie being banned in China. Something like that needs more information (such as why it is banned), ot at the very least cited. --Sigma 7 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a "goofs" section, and putted there what I think it's a goof. There should be a section with references to other shows/movies/patato chips/etc. --Midasminus 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The inaccurracies section seemed to have returned. In my opinion, it looks like editors are misinterpreting that this is a Cartoon and isn't supposed to emulate real life. Can we toss that section? --Sigma 7 05:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the Hedge 2

There is no Over the Hedge 2 planned at this time. Unless there is a valid citation indicating otherwise (at the very least, the official site), such additions should be treated as vandalism. Feel free to bypass {{uw-vandalism4im}} - there is an active vandal that keeps adding this information, known as The UPN Vandal (talk · contribs). Sockpuppets under that account include Delarion97 (talk · contribs) and Jay-G7 (talk · contribs). --Sigma 7 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just block them on sight. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to bypass {{uw-vandalism4im}} - this generally means posting to WP:AIV --Sigma 7 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubled up Character info

Is there actually any point in having both a character and voice cast section, where the character list is duplicated? 217.44.43.9 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to remove that too, but got a message asking me why. But we don't need that double info. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 18:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I assumed the deletion of the voice section was deliberated page blanking/vandalism. I will leave you to edit the page. I didn't realise the edits were constructive. Tomayres 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Command & Conquer reference ?

The laser beam created by the exploding Depelter Turbo destroying a satellite looks like a reversed Ion Cannon from Command & Conquer's Tiberian series --Molnart 21:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies section

Pruned it. Why is it even there in the first place? I don't want to start a revert war over it, but the rationale for its removal include:

1. Trivia. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous factoids, if information is not important, there is no reason for it to be mentioned.
2. Some of the factoids (such as animals' allergy to chocolate) are almost immediately excused by the characters being anthropomorphized animals. Certainly real porcupines don't know how to play video games, racoons can't use a laser pointer or fishing rod, and so on.
3. Factoids such as Verne's removable shell are just as quickly excused because of the film's source material. Being based on a comic strip, it is more important for the film crew to be accurate to the strip than to true life.
4. And some of the factoids, such as Stella's "skunk bomb", are easily excused as it is a comedic gag, used to get a laugh out of the audience. This is a family / kid-friendly film.

If you want this section, please provide a reason for its inclusion, and make it something better than "useful", "interesting", or "I like it" (the first argument does not satisfy WP:NOT, and the latter two are merely POV). --Stratadrake 15:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal: "Inaccurate" requires the content to mismatch what is "correct". If you include differences between a cartoon world and the real world, you are describing the entirety of cartoon physics - something that would take an entire book. Even so, listing them as inaccurrate can still be considered silly, especially in the case of Wile E. Coyote which uses a variably inconsistant physics system. --Sigma 7 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be SO COOL!!

I sure hope that they're making a sequel of the movie. The second movie could focus around Ozzie or Verne or even RJ again!!

65.54.155.52 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they are in 2009 and it will be about Hammy I believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.203.128 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Adventures Of Over The Hedge

Shouldn't we mention this show? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.47.110 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed this from the article. The user who entered it on the pain page and this user have both been warned / blocked for vandalization. I can't find any legitimate source for this information, so I'm removing it. --Tometheus (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammy's Boomerang Adventure released with flushed away?

I didn't see it before that movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.96.171 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been suggested to merge the following four articles into Over the Hedge (film):

• List of Over the Hedge characters
• RJ (Over the Hedge)
• Verne (Over the Hedge)
• Hammy (Over the Hedge)

This suggestion was made in the course of the deletion discussion for List of Over the Hedge characters, particularly by The Transhumanist and Torc2. Caution was made during the discussion that elements of each of these articles could be merged into both Over the Hedge (film) and Over the Hedge, a caution that I echo. (BTW, the deletion proposal itself failed for lack of consensus.)

I will personally support the merger suggestion, since I do not believe that any of these characters, nor the list of them, carry any notability apart from the comic strip and/or film. WP:SIZE constraints would be the only justification for breaking out a list separate from the articles about the film and comic strip. Articles such as Over the Hedge (video game) and Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) can productively link back to the film and comic strip articles for detailed character descriptions, as well as a lot of other context beyond just the characters. Ipoellet (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid and Lion King characters have their own articles, so why can't these guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.36 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at Simba, Rafiki, Timon and Pumbaa, and Ariel (The Little Mermaid). Of those "Rafiki" and "Timon and Pumbaa" are completely unreferenced, "Simba" has only one reference that doesn't appear to meet the standard of reliability, and "Ariel" has several sources but only one (#2) that even begins to approach reliability. So, by the standards of notability, those characters probably shouldn't have their own articles. "RJ", "Verne", and "Hammy" all fall into the completely unreferenced category. BTW, watch out for WP:ALLORNOTHING. Ipoellet (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose They shouldn't be merged into the film article; they should be merged into the article about the comic. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge the soundtracks page here

The page for the soundtrack only displays the track list and it seems to be a waste. EwanMclean2005 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Character chart

I removed all the "Notable Roles" previously found in the chart under Cast. These notable roles are that of the actors who voiced the characters, and thus have no impact whatsoever on the actual film, Over the Hedge. If users are interested in learning about other roles the actors of this movie have taken, they are free to click the wikilinks of the actors to visit the actors' respective articles. There's no need for a brief actor history to be in this article. - K e n g - t | c - 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Why does Hammy, Verne and RJ redirect to here and not the film? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

vandalism...please change back

Somebody has replaced the cast's names with fake names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.90.185 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RJ

Did RJ remind anyone else of Tony from The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus? --86.179.84.224 (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot check?

Did Hammie drink cola or an energy drink? It looked more like that to me. Nutster (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

R.I.P.

Garry Shandling, who voiced Verne, has died. --70.162.223.119 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Walt Disney Feature Animation for Over the Hedge (2006)

Over the Hedge is NOT produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation, just look like the theatrical release of the 1997 animated family film Anastasia released by 20th Century Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.118 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Nomenclauture

This film has contributed to scientific nomenclature, as even a cursory perusal of Steve (atmospheric phenomenon) and Aurorasaurus readily demonstrates. kencf0618 (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Over the Hedge (film) → Over the Hedge
• Over the Hedge → Over the Hedge (comic strip)

– Film is the overwhelming primary topic by pageviews. Despite coming first, fewer are aware of the comic in comparison. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Or maybe the DAB should be at the base name? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  I considered that, but the film is clearly primary here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The film is far better known. The DAB is just the strip, movie, and two of the movie's adaptations; I don't really think that's a useful landing spot, when, as the nom says, most people want the movie article. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose (film) prevents confusion with other subjects called "Over the Hedge". Kolano123 (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The film has approx. 10x the pageviews of the comic strip, so its clearly the primary topic. Bensci54 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.