Talk:The Last Unicorn (film)

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

Stop moaning about Mia Farrow[edit]

Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View. Whoever keeps writing in things about how bad Mia Farrow is, please stop. Darien Shields 17:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Level?[edit]

An informative article, although it could definitely use some spit-and-polish in order to conform to a higher standard of quality. I made a minor grammatical change (changed the word "wannabe"). I'm going to refrain from touching anything else as I'm not familiar enough with the subject. Perhaps someone with a greated breadth of experience in the subject matter could throw in their own two cents? JustinStroud 19:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links getting a bit much?[edit]

I noticed two links added in the past week or so- one to a page that's a Tribute to Lady Amalthia, and one about the songs of the films. The Tribute site is very well composed, and quite professional in appearance, while the songs site is a very clumsy (no offence) Geo Cities site. However, I'm just not sure if either has the content to warrant being linked. I dunno. Maybe I'm just being stubborn or something. What do you all think? (Darien Shields 15:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Possible Allusion?[edit]

I while reading an assignment for a Critical theory class, I saw the name Smerdis, who was mentioned as an "imposter magician". I looked it up on Wikipedia:Smerdis

Does anyone think this could possibly be related to Schmendrick? On one hand, the names are arguably only vaguely similiar (Smerdis=not a super lot like Schmendrick) but the theme of impostors and Magi is there (Ie, Schmendrick is seemingly an impostor or "not real" magician), and the names are similiar enough that it could be related. Any thoughts? -Sailor_Titan

I think that there may be a reasonably good chance... that name isn't exactly a common one, so it had to have come from somewhere. It's possible that it was just thought up out of the blue, but it's not very likely. Perhaps it could be mentioned as a possible linguistic link. Esn 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter S. Beagle states that there is no connection between "Smerdis" and his character Schmendrick. The name Schmendrick is both a play on the comic strip magician character "Mandrake" and a Yiddish word meaning "a fool, the boy sent to do a man's job." User:Connorfc 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

25th Anniversary DVD / February 2007[edit]

I updated the information under DVD releases to expand on the reported content and nature of the U.S. DVD release slated for next month. I phrased it as speculative, since we obviously can't verify the final content of the disk until it comes out on the market. After the release, someone will need to go back and edit it again to bring it into line with whatever the actual quality/content of the release turns out to be, and also change the phrasing to indicate it as something that's already happened, rather than a planned event.--Almagesh 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


On iTunes the Last Unicorn Remix CD (entitled "The Last Unicorn 2005") is credited to Da Sylver and DeeFour. I made the change, but I assumed that these are the European DJs mentioned in the text. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pepsidude 22:33, 18 April 2007

In Some library's...[edit]

I've noticed that in some library's, this movie is featured in the Children's Section, even though it has swears and whatnot. This is obviously some kind of misconception that the film is for young children. Should there be an area in the article that states this wrong doing?

The film only contains one instance of the word "damn," which still constituted a G rating back when it was originally released.Yoshiaki Abe (talkcontribs) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. There are two "damns". Yoshiaki Abe 15:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since the film version is very very close to the original novel, both in plot and in themes, I think it certainly qualifies for a merge, especially since a considerably large plot summary is repeated on both pages. I do NOT mind merging the articles myself due to subject familiarity if that is necessary. I also agree with JustinStroud (above) in that this article could certainly stand to be polished up. That's no problem for me. Just someone tell me if I have the authority to merge them or not. If we do the merge, I will do everything I can to get the merged article to FA status.Yoshiaki Abe (talkcontribs) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think it's best to just leave the articles as separate instead of merging them, seeing as the film article is long enough as it is. SilentAria talk 01:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but about half the page contains pretty much the same content as the novel. Not word-for-word, but it seems like a waste to me to have it twice, especially since both pages are still labeled as Start-Class and certainly need work because of that. I would very much like to see a single Last Unicorn page that actually looks decent and on it's way to FA status. Any other opinions? Yoshiaki Abe 15:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my humble opinion, merging two start class articles is not equivalent to having a decent article that would be on its way to FA status. There are several things missing in the separate articles as it is...for example, the film article is still missing information on production, development, reception, and casting; and the book article is missing information on publication history, allusions, reception, and more. If you were to merge these articles and eventually include all the necessary information for both the film and the book, you'd end up with an article that's too long and have to split them again. You may want to refer to the article guidelines found in the following pages for reference: Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. SilentAria talk 15:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum: The Films WikiProject also has a sub-project specifically made to split articles about books and films based on books into separate articles. You can take a look at it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books. Films based on books and the books they were based on are supposed to be in separate articles, since they're two separate productions. Movie tie-ins are an exception to this standard, of course. SilentAria talk 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I didn't realize there was a separate Films Based on Books project. Then I guess the merge is off, and I'll just do what I can separately to add information. Thanks! Yoshiaki Abe 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think you should merge. Go ahead! The article was started in 2003, but it wasn't spilt untill 2006. They really should be merged, it's just ridiculous not to. (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not ridiculous not to. Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Films based on books as well as my explanation above. SilentAria talk 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. But I think a merge would be good. And the film does have production and reception sections, and the plot for the film is too long. Can you point to some major examples of or and unsourced statments on the article? Someone should cut down the plot on this article and add to the one on the book. C'mon, they're not that different are they? I'll reply to your message on my talk page as well. (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how a merge can be good; if you want to include all the important details for the film and the book (you can see the recommended structure for film and book articles in the links I posted), you'd wind up splitting the articles anyway, seeing as putting everything in one article would wind up making the article too long. Saying that "they're not that different" isn't enough to justify the merge; the as I mentioned before, film and the book are two separate productions. They're not like movie tie-ins that are part of a single production. And see, the article was already split in 2006. There's really no reason to merge them again.
Like I said in your talk page, the following sections are unsourced (and potentially OR): the entire release section (except for the third paragraph where I added a source and the fifth paragraph), parts of the soundtrack section (that bit about In-Mood and the European DJs needs sourcing, and so does the statement "The album was never released in the United States"), the entire Legal Controversy section, and the Allusions section. Allusions are important, but if they are unsourced and/or just based on the opinion of fans, they shouldn't be included in the article. You may want to familiarize yourself with the guidelines for Film and Book articles (which, again, I posted above) as well as other Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE before making any other changes to the article, and please don't forget to include an edit summary when you edit the articles. --SilentAria talk 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EDIT: The film also has info on the cast and since when are allusions that important anyway? The film has an allusions section but I think that may be one of the "or" parts of it. (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Considering the large number of Japanese artists working on the film's animation, could the film be considered anime? Most of the animation staff later went on to work for Studio Ghibli, which says a lot. I would personally categorise the film as "anime by animation, not anime by everything else". And this being Wikipedia, the question really boils down to can we find a reliable source that identifies the film as anime, or relates the film to anime. Any thoughts?--Mátyás (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just now I reverted an edit by an anonymous editor naming the film anime, so if someone could give us a clue as to how we should go on ascertaining whether this is anime or not, I personally would be most grateful.--... there's more than what can be linked. 13:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a reliable source has called the film anime then it may be appropriate to call the film anime...until such a source can be provided though, I don't think it's appropriate to call the film such. Doniago (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far I found this: [1] "Lady Amalthea, the unicorn looks unnervingly like an anime character" and [...] "As a result, The Last Unicorn is now considered to be an important work in proto-anime." --... there's more than what can be linked. 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't look to be a reliable source. The reviewer's bio doesn't mention any serious credentials in film study and may be entirely self-written. Her claim that TLU is proto-anime is also somewhat dubious as she doesn't say from where she's drawing that information other than her own beliefs. I'd like to see something a bit less dubious. Doniago (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Band Name???[edit]

Was the name Molly Grue the inspiration for the band name Motly Crue? Jdaniels15 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article about the band discusses the origin of the name. Doniago (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality/Source of 'Production' Section[edit]

The 'Production' section requires extensive editing and removal of 'dramatic tone' in order to conform to NPOV. It reads as if it were simply "cut and pasted" wholesale from two editorials. The entire section includes only four source references, two of which are the same article, a third being from an interview from the author. The fourth is from a personal article on how the book impacted a life experience. Three of the references are repeated for entire paragraphs within the section. (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not be bold and make the changes you believe are merited? Just curious. Doniago (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Disappointed" with Alan Arkin's Performance[edit]

From my first hand account, Beagle's opinion on Arkin seems to have changed. On 2015-05-09 at a screening of the Last Unicorn at Images, Willamstown, MA, Beagle discussed how Arkin - who he claimed to have got to know - had told him that his performance was as it was due to the other big names and their large performances in the movie. Beagle stated that he was very happy with all the voice actors and couldn't imagine anyone else playing the roles.

Of course...first hand accounts are not citable on wikipedia. Hence me leaving this on the talk page: If anyone can find a linkable citation for this, that would be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Frees[edit]

According to a recent edit, it seems that Paul Frees actually voiced both the cat and the tree as well as Mabruk. For a long time it was thought Don Messick was the cat and Nellie Bellflower was the tree, but we don't know who the former voiced, and the latter's scenes were cut, but she was credited anyway.

Can anyone provide a better source? There's a link to a YouTube video, but it appears to have been taken down.

Crowmodo (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case this comes up again at some point, it's mentioned on the commentary track for the Shout Factory Blu ray release. DonIago (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent deletions regarding the affairs with Lionsgate[edit]

Quite a lot of information was deleted on 13 March 2017 regarding Lionsgate, Conlan Press, and royalties to Peter S. Beagle. I've attempted to research this, but a cursory investigation has turned up no such information on the website ([2]), except a certain PDF ([3]) which is available on that domain name.
Is this related to a deletion, done 30 July 2016, from the page for the book? The_Last_Unicorn diff=732316324 oldid=732305968
Does anyone have any information regarding why these chunks were deleted?
— JamesEG (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why the info was deleted, but there's lots of info available about the lawsuits between Peter S. Beagle and Connor Cochran/Conlan Press. I was surprised to see none of this in this article or on articles about Cochran and Conlan Press. There is extensive info on this page and in links on the page: Lauriellen (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately a blog is not typically considered a reliable source, and in this instance there would be clear conflict of interest concerns. At a glance the links I saw were to documents hosted on said blog's site as well, which is unfortunate. DonIago (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Country of origin[edit]

If you're going to change country of film's origin with a sourced info, the lead could've also been changed as well. Maybe if Doomdorm64 explain that edit, I wouldn't have change it how it was before the source came. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the lead and the infobox should both reflect whatever we can find sourced info for. Pinging @Doomdorm64:. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "citation needed" for Christopher Lee voicing Haggard in the German dub[edit]

The opening credits of the German dub (at 1:28) confirm that Lee did voice Haggard, though I'm not sure if the video counts as a proper source. (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think so. In my experience, typically casting only requires sourcing if it's an uncredited role. That said, if you can determine who placed the tag, it might be worth reaching out to them. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was MPAA thinking?[edit]

Back in 2000, my mom rented The Last Unicorn for her 5 year old granddaughter. She thought it would be kid friendly since it was rated "G". Afterwards, she viewed the movie and was furious because of the swear words that appeared in it. During that time, I've saw depictions of female nudity, including the infamous "harpy" creature. What was MPAA thinking? Why didn't they rated this higher, such as "PG" or later generations, "PG-13"? This really isn't a film for kids. Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Talk pages aren't really for forum-type discussions; they're for improving the article. On that basis, my inclination is to say that if you can find any reliably sourced information regarding the film's rating, then it may be appropriate for adding into the article. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]