Talk:The Wind in the Willows (1996 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Movie pictures[edit]

Does anyone have any shots of the movie that could be put on the article? BKalesti 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Monty Python to Monty Python[edit]

I changed "ex-Monty Python" to "Monty Python", as Eric Idle has said repeatedly they don't consider themselves ex-Pythons (with the exception of Graham, being dead).

Plot[edit]

I appologize to Gazza1992 for removing the 3 last sentences so I could expand a bit. I tried to keep as much of the original as possible. Hoverfish 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mr Toad Wild Ride.jpg[edit]

Image:Mr Toad Wild Ride.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wind 1996.jpg[edit]

Image:Wind 1996.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original song?[edit]

I realise the words are different, but "Messing About On The River" is musically based on the song of the same name written by Tony Hatch in the 1960s, and famously performed by Josh MacRae. 86.170.203.154 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion[edit]

In my opinion, it's either good or rubbish because the water of the river sings while Ratty and Mole role the boat. The river can't talk because it doesn't talk. Ratty sings Nothing Messing About On The River. This film is based on the classic children's book from 1908 and this version may not be the worst, but it may not be one of the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.255.250 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Differences in the book and the film of 1996[edit]

There are a lot of differences between the original Kenneth Grahame book and the screenplay by Terry Jones in the film.

The clock calling tea time during his spring cleaning and Mole's underground home being ruined by an earthquake making him run away in a panic by the weasels and straight to Ratty's place at once (all to which happens in the film) replaces the original script of Mole getting whitewash all over himself saying 'Oh, bother! Oh blow! hang spring cleaning!, escaping up the ground into the fresh air and taking a springtime walk before meeting Ratty in the book.
In the book Ratty met Otter at the picnic but in the film he meets Otter for one second in the river before telling the rabbits off for being careful on their bikes (of which cycling rabbits never happened in the book)
Some of the original book script about Ratty saying the long list of picnic food when both Rat and Mole leave the house again, eating the picnic on the bank meeting Otter and his son Portly (seen in the book but not in the film). Badger seeing the picnic for one second and grunting 'Hm! Company!' got cut out for the film part as of Ratty rowing Mole to Toad Hall straight away.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.73.26 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[edit]

@koavf: Having flagged inadequacy of this article's lede, please now explain just what details are desirable in the intro of a relatively trivial subject such as this movie. Personally, I think some of the content can be dispensed with, e.g., the names of cast which are triplicated in the infobox and cast sections. Wouldn't it be enough to state the variant titles, country of origin, year of release (not exact date) and, of course, the original creator Kenneth Grahame? On that basis, this lede is too long rather than short. On the other hand, I find plenty of unsatisfactory content in the remainder of the article, e.g., the box-office dollar values which are encyclopedically meaningless unless periodically compared against fluctuating currency values. May I respectfully suggest that you consider editing an article in a sincere fashion rather than merely using a blunderbuss to blast aimless holes here and there? Bjenks (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjenks: I'm assuming good faith here with your question, although there is no reason to characterize my editing like you do. If you look at an article like The Fountain (movie), it contains all of the elements that a lead should have. E.g. it explains the plot, which is almost always the largest section of a film article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see and, according to MOS:FILM, I now also see that a lead section on a film "should...provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." Optionally, we learn, there can be a plot summary and other content in later lead paragraphs. You may wish to see some of this detail duplicated, in which case you are entitled to make the addition. Personally, if it were deemed necessary, I would prefer to click on the provided wikilink— to see the basic plot written by Grahame—before moving to the section on the film's plot and its variations from the original. I believe there remains reasonable discretion to minimise the lead section in the case of a not-particularly-noteworthy film. Bjenks (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]