Talk:Rio (2011 film)

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 January 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American / Animated

	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 American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Animation: Films Mid‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Brazil: Arts Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Arts in Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

According to the Danish website here scope.dk movie is also Canadian (sorry my bad english) [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.161.143.239 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue macaw

Since "blue macaw" is actually a nickname for several kinds of macaws (Hyacinth, Lear's, Glaucous and Spix have all blue plummages) I'm trying to find a source for Blu being a spix. Has anyone had any luck with this? SO far the only thing potentially usable I've found is this book. The summary on the Harper Collins website notes that Blu is a spix (which fits with the film plotline) but as I don't ahve access to the book, I can't cite it properly (page number and the like). Any one have any suggestions? Millahnna (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot in this section needs to be significantly shortened. I took a stab at it earlier, but it still needs a lot of work. Let's try to shoot for around 500-700 words. That length seems to be the going standard for most featured articles, like The Simpsons Movie. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're down to a little over 700 words. Has anyone seen the movie and might be offer some advice on which plot elements to remove? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In theory I'm seeing this over the next two days and I should be able to take a better whack at it. Right now, I'm concerned with finding a reliable source beyond the companion book I note above so that we can end this Spix/Blue nonsense once and for all. Millahnna (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of length, our efforts have managed to reduce the plot to under 700 words. Adding some reliable sources could also be beneficial, but I think we've at least solved the issue of the plot being too lengthy. Over the next 48-72 hours, we might want to consider removing the "plot is too lengthy" tag at the top of the plot section. I'll let this sit for a few days first to see if anyone objects. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. We could probably remove the tag now but until we have a stable plot in there it will probably go back and forth between bloated and not. Doniago made a template for that sort of thing but I can't remember what it's called. It amounts to "people are editing this plot like crazy so maybe you could help on another section of the article." Millahnna (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago? Is that a user? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure he actually made the tag I'm thinking of (he made another one related to plots but I'm not sure he did this one). Millahnna (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot revision by Disneydreamworksgirl (DDWG)

I'm fairly certain I'm at my max for reverting these additions so I wanted to address them here instead of crossing into edit war territory. Personally, I prefer the version in place prior to DDWG's edits (though it still needs further trimming for length): it's more clear, is written better in terms of grammar, and has fewer unneeded details. DDWG's version, to my eye, has awkward syntax, overlinking, improper capitalization, and does not improve an understanding of the main plot. Additionally, it's adding a fair amount of length to a plot that's already a tad on the too-long side of the Film plot guidelines. Am I alone in thinking this or should we look at keep her version and polishing up the awkward stuff? Millahnna (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should leave the version in place prior to these edits. Unless someone objects, I am going to start trimming it up to at least 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT, since I have reverted two times here and do not wish to violate 3RR or get blocked again. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is now trimmed to 693 words. Would that work? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite improvement. At one point it was real concise and I quite liked that version; but then the inevitable bloat happened. I figure there's a happy medium between the two.TravisBernard did a lot of good work getting it to where was before today. I've been meaning to go in there to do more but keep getting sidetracked by looking for a good ref to use for the Blue/Spix thing. Millahnna (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys about this one user edits. We can continue to moderate changes, but I think the plot looks pretty good right now. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MPAA Section

While I see that there was some controversy concerning the rating for the film, I was under the impression that MPAA ratings were not included in Wikipedia articles. If anyone does not object, I am going to go ahead and remove this section. --TravisBernard (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are included when they are notable; fighting for a particular MPAA rating change usully qualifies (see Sucker Punch (film) for a good example). Millahnna (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think in this case, the MPAA rating change is notable enough, so I went ahead and reverted my previous edits. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the statement at the end of the paragraph (I put a fact tag on it awhile back). I think the IP who wrote it is right (only third time, yada yada) but I haven't been able to find a source noting that fact. I'm not sure that such a statement doesn't amount to WP:SYNTH, in light of that. But I don't think it hurts to leave it there for a week or two longer with the tag while we search for stuff. Millahnna (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph

The introduction paragraph tends to be the most important part of the entire article. It's what shows up in search engines and it's the most frequently read portion of the article. I think the intro could definitely use some improvements. For example, I think that there are too many notable cast members listed in the intro paragraph. I think we should maybe cut it down to around four to five major cast members. Obviously Anne Hathaway and Jesse Eisenberg are not going to be cut, but I think a few of the others can be cut. My recommendation is to cut Tracy Morgan, Jemaine Clement, Leslie Mann, will.i.am, Jamie Foxx, and Davi Vieira. Thoughts? On a side note, I got pretty excited when I Googled "Rio film" the other day. The Wiki article is the first result! --TravisBernard (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the lede has already been expanded, and I have removed most of the cast except for Hathaway, Eisenberg, Lopez and Clement in doing so. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and MPAA section move

I was looking over the Manual of Style for film, and these sections should actually be moved below the release section or put in the release section. If no one has an issue with this, I will go ahead and make the change. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. When I moved stuff around the other day I was thinking marketing before release since that's what order they happen in (like how we'd have a production section before release if we had one). But I'm easy on the section order as long as stuff is in logical subsections where it's warranted so that works for me. Millahnna (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible overlinking and plot issues?

I am concerned about possible overlinking issues in the article, especially linking to the species names in the plot and voice cast sections, and also adding extremely unimportant details to the article. Conmancool17 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly overlinking terms in the concerned sections among other issues such as adding minor details to the plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT), despite being warned not do to so. The MOS on linking states that only the first instances are to be linked as a rule of thumb, which I feel that it was breached ([2], [3]). Also, is it necessary to link to a subject (i.e. species or city names) two times in the article and if not, should it be removed? Rather than getting involved in an edit war any further (as I can get blocked for this), I have decided to post here to see if anyone can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns you've just been beating me to the fixes since I haven't had time to do much other than check in real quick lately. From some recent efforts elsewhere, I've noticed that kids films involving animals seem to draw the critter overlinking, specifically. I would say that most of it falls under the idea of not linking common terms (cat, dog, bird, etc.). I can see linking some of the animals that folks may not be familiar with (like specific species of Macaw since that provides the basis of the storyline, marmoset because they aren't all that commonly known, etc.) but in general I support the changes you have made over the last week. Millahnna (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the changes. This article is coming together well. Keep up the good work. --TravisBernard (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering

I'm just asking where the voice cast for other languages should go? --190.84.180.30 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't believe we would include this information in the article because we are using the English version of Wikipedia. A similar situation came up when working on the Cars 2 article. We decided not to include it. I don't typically like to cite other articles as the "right way" of doing something , but it's the only other place I've seen it. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starring

I watched the movie including the end credits, and the following actors and actresses were listed at the beginning of the credit. This usually means they are the main cast members.

Jesse Eisenberg as Blu Anne Hathaway as Jewel George Lopez as Rafael Bernardo de Paula as Kipo will.i.am as Pedro Jamie Foxx as Nico Tracy Morgan as Luiz Jemaine Clement as Nigel Leslie Mann as Linda Rodrigo Santoro as Túlio Jake T. Austin as Fernando Carlos Ponce as Marcel

I'll add them to the "starring" list. Talkwithme (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is an overview of the topic, and so "Starring" is usually a small field, no more than 3-5 names usually. After all, we have the "Cast" section listing all the main cast members. The infobox is just a snapshot and not meant to disclose everyone's names. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

All right, this is getting out of hand. An IP hopper from Brazil who uses the 189.70.XXX.XXX range continues to add that Jewel kisses Blu in the plot summary, rather than the simple "they kiss in midair", despite my efforts to trim the unnecessary descriptions. The IPs include:

189.70.47.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
189.70.72.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
189.70.31.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
189.70.14.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
189.70.7.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (more recent one)

I feel that the fact that they kiss is important; who kisses Blu, not so much. Can someone voice their opinions on this matter? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the soundtrack images taken away?

Other film articles with soundtrack sections have album art images, and they're not removed! Why is Rio any different? I'm adding them back in. dogman15 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InfamousPrince, could you respond here please? dogman15 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want, you can retrieve those covers. As you wrote on my talk page, you saw that I have a lot of soundtrack images uploaded, but I must say that it was in the beginning, when I just started editing. Back then I didn't know that there should not be soundtrack cover if it is the same as poster in the infobox. So I had a lot of problems with those images just to keep them. So I don't upload soundtrack covers anymore if they are the same as poster, because someone will definitely remove it from article, it's only a matter of time. So, as I said, you can retrieve them, but eventually, someone will remove it from article. InfamousPrince 10:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only one should be removed. Maybe keep the John Powell score album art (white with "RIO") and let the soundtrack album art (bunch of animals on the beach) be deleted? dogman15 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think is right, but I agree with that to leave score cover. InfamousPrince 19:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ursa major awards

this movie has been nominated for a Ursa major award (http://www.ursamajorawards.org/) for Best Motion Picture. i have no skill to edit page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by H2o2go (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

There has been numerous changes to the cast section, specifically with the billed actors and non-billed actors. As far as I know, Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Leslie Mann, Jemaine Clement, George Lopez and Jamie Foxx are listed on the film's poster. However, in the cast section, there has been changes with the non-billed actors listed in prose or all-bulleted list format. Rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am going the WP:BRD route and discuss things here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Split

I think we need to create a page just like this for the Rio film series. Anyone care to comment ?? DtwipzB chat 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too aswell we need one for Highest-grossing animated franchises and film series page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.93.78 (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio (franchise). Mz7 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

What happened to the tracklists? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Brazilian-American film"

I know this movie primarily takes place in Brazil, but was it actually made partially in Brazil? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Story 2001:5B0:4AC2:BD28:F8F7:E252:510C:2B07 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]