Talk:Rabbit Fire

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American 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. Animation: American / Looney Tunes Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Looney Tunes work group (assessed as High-importance). Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this really suitable for an article on its own? Would it not be better suited to entry on a list of Elmer Fudd cartoons? Thryduulf 12:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, because it's actually primarily a Bugs Bunny cartoon (Bugs is the short's lead character). Also, this is the first of the "Duck Season! Rabbit Season!" trilogy, and a short widely considered among Chuck Jones' best works. However, this article needed an expansion, and I have provided it with such.--FuriousFreddy 19:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a link indicating that this cartoon is in the Looney Tunes golden collection volume 1? Jbluez27 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's synopsis of the cartoon includes a rather lengthy quote of the transcript. I get the feeling it goes beyond fair use and into copyright violation with the quantity and the context. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on copyright could have a look and edit it?

Also, the synopsis needs more detail on the scenes beyond the whole "rabbit season/duck season" part. Dazcha 00:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RabbitFireTitle.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5 in the main article sounds like and reads like it's an article pulled from the TVTropes wiki. I think it needs to be removed. Any objections? Raekuul 01:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't say. But this was an oft-used gag by Bugs Bunny. This kind of thing should really be in the Bugs Bunny article, not focused on this one cartoon as if it were special. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section five is "Uses in Modern Media", effectively. Raekuul 02:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raekuul (talk • contribs)

Yes. What I'm saying is that their citing of this particular cartoon is questionable, as Bugsy did it on a number of occasions. But if you can determine that it's taken directly from some other source, feel free to zap it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, then. I checked the possible source. Section 5 reads like it was written by a troper, but it's not taken directly from any source, and TVT is missing the Married with Children example. But not for long ;) Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is considered to be one of the best LT shorts (it's one of my personal favorites) but we cannot simply quote out the majority of the dialog of the short in the plot summary - that's far and above beyond what would be appropriate for any work, much less a 6 minute short. One quoted segment that shows Bugs' adaptness at wordplay - yes, that's reasonable, and part of why this short is memorable, but not all of them. You can add more quotes, but these should go to WikiQuote, not here. Once you take out the quotes, the plot is simple to describe and needs to be nowhere as long as it was. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and cut this section. Bugs uses the reverse-argument trick in a number of his appearances, and this wasn't the earliest one either. If the references were to this particular use of it then it would be relevant, but I don't see any indication of that. Incidentally, is there a proper name for the trick? Theoretically we could have an article about it, but I don't know what we would call it. Imyourfoot (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the term you're fumbling for is "reverse psychology." Abbott and Costello come to mind, as does King Solomon. "Rabbit Fire" is referenced in the "reverse pyschology" wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.111.226 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely reverse psychology, but I was looking for a word for the more specific variation where the person employing reverse psychology actually switches their position in the middle of the argument, rather than simply claiming the opposite position from the beginning as is more common. I suppose it's a moot point, since even if there is a specific term for that it would probably be best as a section on the reverse psychology page rather than its own article. Imyourfoot (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

teehee ;) -- œ^™ 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rabbit Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050702055625/http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/28/chuck_jones/whats_opera_doc_rabbit_fire_feline_frameup.html to http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/03/28/chuck_jones/whats_opera_doc_rabbit_fire_feline_frameup.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]