Talk:The Cat in the Hat

Just to mention that I find it funny that this article is viciously hostile to the film adaptation but no one is editing it for NPOV. Nor does it need to be, I think: since there is a nearly perfect consensus that it's an abomination, it's actually proper NPOV to trash it! That really says something about this film. --Shibboleth 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Shibboleth. From a personal point of view I'm glad you agree that the movie is an abomination. But for me the real force of your remarks is that Wikipedia editors who abominate the film should be extra vigilant that the discussion respects NPOV--and if you see fit to call the article "viciously hostile," then surely we're in trouble on the NPOV front, despite your disclaimer.

Along these lines, I think there's one item (from me originally) where the article may be going overboard. In truth, the film almost made the production costs from the American receipts, and once the foreign receipts and income from the video are factored in, it seems possible that the studio will end up with a profit.

I'd like to check into this a bit and possibly alter the text. Unfortunately this is a hard area for research, since studios are notoriously evasive about the profits of films. If you or anyone else knows how to get data in this area please do mention it. Cheers, Opus33 16:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reason the description seemed hostile to me is that it describes the film as being reviled by critics and ordinary viewers alike, with no mention of anyone at all who liked it. Although this isn't quite the same as going out and saying "This film is awful", it's impossible not to come out with that impression. Although I don't particularly object to this :), it's true that Wikipedia is not generally in the business of making aesthetic judgements.

Examining further, I think the POV lies in this sentence: The film appears to have been more popular with fans who had enjoyed Mike Myers's previous work. The words "appears" and "more" make it sound like Mike Myers fans only liked it somewhat more than others, but still generally disliked it. However, examining the Yahoo reviews, I see that some Mike Myers fans in fact wholeheartedly liked it (see [1] (http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808411847&s=&rvid=7-36514&i=57&spl=&ys=7azKKTPObhDAxq9buXJDKw--),[2] (http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808411847&s=&rvid=255-84383&i=189&spl=&ys=fkcLi8GmCekFKV8HeB_Lfw--),[3] (http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808411847&s=&rvid=255-80411&i=245&spl=&ys=tH4t.FPVz69RlSpZRWFtNQ--)). See also [4] (http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808411847&s=&rvid=255-80797&i=164&spl=&ys=MUs54yNCtODTr7S.8rkVzg--), a very positive review from a fan of the South Park movie. Finally, some children liked the movie ([5] (http://movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=1808411847&s=&rvid=7-36561&i=190&spl=&ys=Zik4kzjFmgbXaDN2Vw8xtA--)) --- although in the case of children it seems outweighed by reports of their crying or being bored --- and a common theme among adults who liked the movie said it should be taken as a children's film.

I've modified the paragraph to make it clearer that some people unabashedly liked it. I can't help with the box office data, though, but I've written that it's "likely" to make a profit. --Shibboleth 20:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Shibboleth, we have to report the truth no matter how unpleasant.  :=) Opus33 22:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed a pseudo-intellectual parody review from this talk page that had no bearing on the article content. If you like this sort of thing, it's available here (http://www.thacker.ca/medical/cat_in_the_hat.htm), among other locations. 82.92.119.11 20:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)