Talk:King Louie

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

Alligator at Louisville Zoo[edit]

Contrary to the Trivia section I just deleted from this article, the alligator named King Louie at the Louisville Zoo is not named for the character King Louie. The alligator is name for King Louis XVI of France. So says the page about him at the Louisville Zoo website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenllama (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary tag inappropriate[edit]

I deleted the plot summary tag. Despite edit description for the removal of the tag, not even two full para.s are dedicated to plot summary. To me, plot summary here means character description from within the work. Para.s are as follows:

  1. The largest, is about the creative process in the real world that lead to the inclusion of the character. The first sentence could be considered plot summary, but really, it's a one sentence description that orients the reader.
  2. Some characrer description, but even that is more outside analysis, "classic misunderstood villian" is literary commentary. That aside, the middle of the para. is about realworld events, a lawsuit, that prevented the character's inclusion in later works.
  3. Is a description character in the live action movie. It is a contrast with the animated film of three sentences, one of which basically says he appeared in the work.

Remaining para.s are very short, 1-2 para.s each. One is a reference to the character made in a non-Disney work. The next is another real life explanation for why a King Larry character was used instead of Louie (law suit again). The last is the one sentence section noting the character is used as an example of racial stereotyping in the real world.

In short, the tag was inappropriate given review of the article. It's placement appears to have been a kneejerk reaction. Not entirely hard to understand, given a cleanup tag is highly appropriate and will be added. The references/sources tag is VERY appropriate as there is some very good info on the creation process and after, but all unsourced. Lead is minor in the view of the overall cleanup and structure required, but true as well. IMHO (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...you could have just removed the tag without the long explanation. It was added last month when the article was almost entirely plot. :P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see the response before. I checked the version at the time the tag was added. The content is very much the same then as now, though the current version has been restructured. IMHO (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring 11/9/08[edit]

I've attempted to add some structure while keeping the (currently unsourced) information intact. I have no great attachment to the names, or even the spirit of the categories, if anyone can come up with better, but I figured some breaking up of the article into sections would help move things along. So, there is now

  1. Character creation which is all of the original first paragraph except for the first sentence, which became the lead. Could definitely use clean up, maybe some fleshing out, and absolutely needs sources.
  2. King Louie in different Disney works should be the main character description of the character through various works. It's currently what's left after the guttin (see next section) of the second para. and the entirety of the third. At this point, it's pretty light. At the least, a short bit on what his iterations in Tale Spin (Tail spin?) and the other series should be put in.
  3. Notable absences and replacementsis discussion of the law suit(s), threat of same, and how they affected later works that would otherwise have included this character, or at least not made an obvious clone. Sourcing again.
  4. References here is the use of the character outside Disney. I'd imagine there are other examples than the Fables instance, likely parodies. I know the name duplicates the footnotes. Feel free to change to an appropriate moniker.
  5. Racial stereotyping allegations remains as it was in I came in.

I hope this helps somewhat. IMHO (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone this a little to better reflect what is seen with GA level character articles (and having two references section would be very confusing) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly adjusted one of your changes, creating a Popular Culture section, thus splitting off the Fables' use of the character from Disney. I don't think that an exact mold should apply to every article, but this seems to work for others, and the distinction of the owner's use of the character and non-owners' use is wotrth a separate section. I do think, ultimately that there should be a separation of actual appearances v. non-appearances/replacements, but I also expect more to be added (Tale Spin, etc), so once the section itself grows, subheadings will be more approrpriate. IMHO (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone that as I see no reason to move the single "non Disney" from the rest. It also give the appearance of it being a trivial thing rather than legitimate. Good character articles rarely have an "In popular culture" section of that kind. Rather, such a section should deal with cultural influences, such as the character Xena's role in advancing feminine views and that sort of thing, not just other shows/works he appeared in. Basically, the article should focus primarily on his initial appearance, with the Other appearances dealing with all others, not just the Disney. Nor should it come down to Disney versus everyone else, just because Disney owns the design. Again, please view some other GA character articles, which are appropriate molds to use here. Considering nearly the entire article is unsourced anyway, simple is better. Talking of expansion is getting ahead of the game when what's there now isn't even technically valid. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that simply because it's unsourced that expansion is inappropriate. Different contributors work differently. Really, there's nothing on there that I would particulary question myself. But as to the section, I had in fact looked at Jabba the Hutt which is a feature article. Granted there is much more in each section, including what the character comes to symbolize in the popular media, nevetheless, that page does distinguish from the treatment in the Star Wars franchise and by those outside of it.
Simply as a reader, I find it mentally sloppy for what can be very different characterizations to be lumped together in one field. The same with treating his appearance in a continuous series as opposed to some other work that takes him out of that continuity (Tale Spin). If you have some GA, featured, or B up articles of a character similar to King Louie as far different productions, link them so I can get a better idea of what you're looking at. I admit, I don't like Popular media as a title (the character, after all is popular media itself), but again, that is what I have seen in other articles and it is less confusing that References. Restoring for now. IMHO (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the compromise name and movement to a subsection for other works including King Louie. IMHO (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

From Mouse to Mermaid I was reading a bit further along the preview link to see if there was any acknowledgement along the lines of the one from the Gospel According to Disney. It looks like there may be, but the preview option made it difficult to check. I DID notice that there were two names on top that did not match the reference in this article. A little further checking gave the following title and authors for that section of the book

Title: The Movie You See The Movie You Don't How Disney Do's That Old Time Derision
Authors: Susan Miller and Greg Rhode

I'm assuming that the reference is giving editors' names and that this is an essay/article within the book, but don't have a hard copy to check. Also, I'm not quite as familiar with citation format if it is the case. We may want to check the other references as well. IMHO (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism[edit]

I removed the section about the racial claims because it is unlikely and, like the claims about Sebastian from The Little Mermaid and the villains of The Lion King, it isn't realistic enough to be mentioned in the article. Like a friend of mine once said: "If you think King Louie is a racist character, then you're either brain-dead stupid or you're actually trying to find racism in films". 68.164.80.221 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how realistic the racism allegation is. It has been widely discussed in reliable sources, such as those cited in the article, so should be mentioned in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even with valid sources the grammar, syntax, etc., of this article need a major overhaul. PurpleChez (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a non-sourced claim that the mannerisms of the character were based purely on the Italian-American voice actor. (The same comment was previously deleted for the same reason.) The comment could be fine if sourced. It seems clear to me that the role was deliberately imitating and referencing Louis Armstrong, who is African-American and a vastly better-known figure than Louis Prima. I would think that the Louis Armstrong connection should be mentioned, though it could also include a sourced claim that Armstrong was not being referenced. John Kim (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some references on the Louis Armstrong connection: [1], [2] and an interview on the Louis Prima connection [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.h.kim (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"but to avoid the likely controversy that would surround casting a black person to voice an ape, they instead chose Prima.[1]"

You dorks finally admitting that black people are apes? I mean, since your butthurt seems to be confined to blacks being likened to monkeys I can only assume that you believe it is offensive to liken them to apes since they are more apelike than others and therefore, referring to them as apes hits closer to home.

Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.47.47 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your heart.PurpleChez (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://theaporetic.com/?p=3186
  2. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=YdY-ouXctDsC&pg=PA181&dq=%22King+Louie%22+Louis+Armstrong&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wV31UfW-BKStiAKUnoHwCw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22King%20Louie%22%20Louis%20Armstrong&f=false
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV8HrpOu1FA

TaleSpin[edit]

I noticed that there is nothing about this character's TaleSpin incarnation. I should think that it should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.181.172 (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type of animal[edit]

Does anyone happen to know what kind of animal King Louie is supposed to be? The article clearly states that he is an orangutan. However, he doesn't possess any of the distinctive physical characteristics of a male orangutan. (Also, there are no orangutans in India and never have been.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.17.89 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask zoogeographic accuracy from Disney. Orangutans are from Southeast Asia, even if not from India. He looks like an orangutan, then, he's an orangutan. Verenjeno (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_Louie&oldid=1207982988"