Talk:Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (short film series)

Famous Quotes?

Should the article really have a "famous quotes" page? I fixed one of them ("Sometimes people say..."), because it was previously incorrect, but I just don't see why this section belongs in the article at all. The video isn't even three an a half minutes long; why bother highlighting particular quotes? 98.245.172.221 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it should not, and now it does not. 205.156.136.229 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged, with a clear consensus against the proposed merge.Lennart97 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Request received to merge articles: Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (2021 film) into Marcel the Shell with Shoes On (2010 film); dated: {April/2022}. Proposer's Rationale: {The film produced in 2021 is just the next chapter in the character's story which started with the first film in 2010}. Discuss here. 108.36.193.88 (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ridiculous proposal. They're different films, different subjects. The new film is based on the short film. Definitely should be separate. 182.1.92.116 (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I don't lean either way at this time, but I don't think it's that ridiculous of a proposal. The 2004 feature film Saw was based on a 2003 short film. 2014's What We Do in the Shadows was based on a 2005 short. There's a whole category of similar examples of features based on shorts; for some of them, both the feature and the short have their own articles (like Saw), and for others, the feature is the only one that has an article (like Shadows). The question is whether Marcel the Shell with Shoes On would work better as a single article or not—"different films, different subjects" doesn't necessarily mean that a short and a feature should be separate. —Matthew - (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It is still ridiculous. Why would an article about a feature film, which is notable on its own, be merged into an article about a short film? 182.1.124.203 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I misread the proposal. I thought that it was about merging the article for the 2010 short into the article for the 2021 feature. The proposal is slightly more ridiculous than I assumed. —Matthew - (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with the user above, ridiculous proposal. Why would the article for a full length feature film be merged into an article about the short on the same character?? --Babar Suhail (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This feature film being the continuation (or "the next chapter", as said in the proposal) of a previous (short) film does not affect the fact that it is still a separate film. All the short films and this feature film do feature the same character(s), but have different narratives. A film being a continuation of another does not necessarily mean the sequel has to be merged with its predecessor, practically meaning this proposal is pointless and nothing but a mere waste of time (plus merging an article about a feature length film with that of a short film seems quite absurd). FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Banter here)} 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes absolutely no sense to merge the 2. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Episodes

We plan to add the heading ‘Episodes’ and organize it with a table outlining key information on each episode (title, director, date, awards, etc.) We will also add a synopsis for each episode ZoeDWikis (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)