Talk:Hoodwinked!

message: There is nothing majorly wrong with this article, but the "Production" section is not sufficient at the moment to warrant an upgrade to "C class". It is best left as "Start" class article for the time-being and hopefully an editor will develop the section. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the production section and have made some other additions to the page as well. I believe that the article is ready to be reassessed.--Jpcase (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You've done a good job. I'll have a proper look at it later in the week, but I don't think there will be any major obstacles to upgrading the rating. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the assessment. Does this page need to be individually assessed for all of the WikiProjects it is a part of or can I just change it to a C-class for "Animation" and "Comedy"?--Jpcase (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically you should request an assessment by them. Each project has different style guidelines, so I may have not accounted for something that is required by those projects. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I think that I have addressed these three issues. Is the article ready to be upgraded to "B class"?--Jpcase (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be out of town for a few days, so if you reply before I get back, I will not be able to comment right away. Sorry.--Jpcase (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just realized that Betty Logan has retired from Wikipedia editing, so I posted the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#Requests for assessment --Jpcase (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks a lot for being willing to reassess this page, and for the fixes you've made. I had to make one change though. A quote is included in the article which says that the film's "cheaply rendered surfaces resemble Teletubbieland reupholstered with Naugahyde." You rewrote this quote, changing "Teletubbieland" to "Tellytubbyland." I don't know what the proper spelling is, but since this is a quote, I do not believe that it should be altered. Also, the quote by Jami Bernard says "Oddly enough, if it hadn't tried so hard to be "now," it might have had a better shot at being remembered later." I'm not sure why, but you moved the comma after "now" outside of the quotation marks. I don't know what the Wikipedia norm is, but I believe that it is grammatically correct to include commas inside quotation marks, not outside of them. Also, since this is a quote, I'm not sure that it should be changed anyway. Is there any reason that I should not put the comma back inside the quotation marks?--Jpcase (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right about the comma. We leave punctuation outside of the quotes usually according to the MOS except when it is part of the original quotation, so I've put it back for you. There is a useful guide at MOS:LQ. If you disagree with something like that just change it back and drop a note here. I am going to check the sourcing now anyway, but I don't expect any major problems there. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

text: According to this interview - http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html - Todd Edwards has called Hoodwinked! "the first fully independently-funded computer-animated feature film." Cory goes on to say " I realize that there were other independently-funded projects being done at the same time, but yes, we were the first... the first kind of a new model and a new way of making an animated film. It was made with no studio money, overseas, then picked up by a major distributor. A few other animated films have followed this path, but not to the level of success that Hoodwinked was able to achieve. I know Veggie Tales had a movie come out earlier that year, but that was with a struck deal and brand recognition. Hoodwinked was this freak of nature that was made completely outside of the studio system and, thankfully, worked. I rarely toot my own horn, but these are facts that never get mentioned and I am really proud of what our little film did." Could I use this reference to say that Hoodwinked! was one of the first independent computer animated films to be produced without the aid of distributor? Unfortunately, the interview is contained on a blog, and I'm not sure whether the blog is maintained by a professional journalist, however it is chock full of interviews with famous people. Also, I can verify the authenticity of the interview since Cory Edwards mentions it on his official website (see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95) --Jpcase (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this question on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview and it seems that I can include this as a reference. I used Cory Edwards site as a reference also, to verify the authenticity of the fullecirclestuff.blogspot reference.--Jpcase (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I had been wondering that myself. The source says Tom Kinney, and while I originally assumed that it was a typo, there were a number of obscure, little known actors in this film, so I can't say for sure. I left a message for Cory Edwards over at his website, so hopefully he will clear this up. However, if he doesn't reply, I feel that we should say Tom Kinney, since that is what the source says.--Jpcase (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cory Edwards replied saying that it actually is Tom Kenny, so I've changed that. I also retitled the Design section Animation and added some new info. I put the sentence about the animation being created on Maya software back in that section, but I tried to connect it better with the other sentences.--Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: * I've started reviewing this article again. Generally it's a decent, well sourced article, so there won't be any problem in upgrading it to 'B' class once I'm through with review. However, the biggest problem I've come across so far is the typography. I've had to italicise many film articles.  Please read through MOS:TITLE to acquaint yourself with what should be italicised.  Newspapers, books, magazines, and online news organizations should all be italicised. The worst section for MOS violations is the Reception section, so this need to be addressed. The coverage and neutrality is generally fine, I will check it for copyvios and the sourcing tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for being willing to reassess this page, and for the fixes you've made. I had to make one change though. A quote is included in the article which says that the film's "cheaply rendered surfaces resemble Teletubbieland reupholstered with Naugahyde." You rewrote this quote, changing "Teletubbieland" to "Tellytubbyland." I don't know what the proper spelling is, but since this is a quote, I do not believe that it should be altered. Also, the quote by Jami Bernard says "Oddly enough, if it hadn't tried so hard to be "now," it might have had a better shot at being remembered later." I'm not sure why, but you moved the comma after "now" outside of the quotation marks. I don't know what the Wikipedia norm is, but I believe that it is grammatically correct to include commas inside quotation marks, not outside of them. Also, since this is a quote, I'm not sure that it should be changed anyway. Is there any reason that I should not put the comma back inside the quotation marks?--Jpcase (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right about the comma. We leave punctuation outside of the quotes usually according to the MOS except when it is part of the original quotation, so I've put it back for you. There is a useful guide at MOS:LQ. If you disagree with something like that just change it back and drop a note here. I am going to check the sourcing now anyway, but I don't expect any major problems there. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

text: According to this interview - http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html - Todd Edwards has called Hoodwinked! "the first fully independently-funded computer-animated feature film." Cory goes on to say " I realize that there were other independently-funded projects being done at the same time, but yes, we were the first... the first kind of a new model and a new way of making an animated film. It was made with no studio money, overseas, then picked up by a major distributor. A few other animated films have followed this path, but not to the level of success that Hoodwinked was able to achieve. I know Veggie Tales had a movie come out earlier that year, but that was with a struck deal and brand recognition. Hoodwinked was this freak of nature that was made completely outside of the studio system and, thankfully, worked. I rarely toot my own horn, but these are facts that never get mentioned and I am really proud of what our little film did." Could I use this reference to say that Hoodwinked! was one of the first independent computer animated films to be produced without the aid of distributor? Unfortunately, the interview is contained on a blog, and I'm not sure whether the blog is maintained by a professional journalist, however it is chock full of interviews with famous people. Also, I can verify the authenticity of the interview since Cory Edwards mentions it on his official website (see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95) --Jpcase (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this question on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview and it seems that I can include this as a reference. I used Cory Edwards site as a reference also, to verify the authenticity of the fullecirclestuff.blogspot reference.--Jpcase (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I had been wondering that myself. The source says Tom Kinney, and while I originally assumed that it was a typo, there were a number of obscure, little known actors in this film, so I can't say for sure. I left a message for Cory Edwards over at his website, so hopefully he will clear this up. However, if he doesn't reply, I feel that we should say Tom Kinney, since that is what the source says.--Jpcase (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cory Edwards replied saying that it actually is Tom Kenny, so I've changed that. I also retitled the Design section Animation and added some new info. I put the sentence about the animation being created on Maya software back in that section, but I tried to connect it better with the other sentences.--Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class review 

message: I would like to use the comment section on co-director Cory Edwards's official website as a reference on this page, but am unsure whether Wikipedia standards would consider this acceptable. I want to include information on the film's original cast that was replaced very late in production after the Weinstein Company got involved in an attempt to lure in a larger audience. I know that comment sections are not normally acceptable as references, but was wondering if this could be considered as an exception as the comments were indisputably made by one of the film's directors on his own official website. I would use a different reference if there was one, but unfortunately there isn't and I wouldn't even consider using this if I didn't know for a fact that the comments in question were definately made by Cory Edwards himself.
Here is a link to the page I would like to use - http://coryedwards.com/?p=230
--Jpcase (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the source would be acceptable under the policy, so no exception needs to be made.  "Comments" sections are only prohibited because the identity of the author can't usually be ascertained, but in this case it is obviously the owner of the site responding to comments so there isn't really a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be used as a reference? 

message: This is a pretty minor point, but I am unsure whether quotation marks should be placed around the title Shrek in the excerpt from Rotten Tomatoes. While quotation marks are typically used when writing a film's title, they were not used on the Rotten Tomatoes site. Should we copy the quote from Rotten Tomatoes exactly as it appeared on that site and not use quotations marks in this instance or should we slightly alter the quote and include quotation marks as is proper to do when writing a film's title?--Jpcase (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I wrote this after looking at the history of edits for this page, but failed to look at the page as it actually appears. I mistakenly thought that editor HJawad had added quotation marks to the title, but he/she actually made the title appear in italics. That being said, the title Shrek does not appear in italics on the Rotten Tomatoes page either, so should it be changed to normal type or should the italics remain?--Jpcase (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Film titles should be in italics rather than quotes i.e. Hoodwinked as opposed to "Hoodwinked" as per MOS:TITLE. As for film titles in quotations, generally quotes should retain the style they are written in, but you are allowed to make a few alterations to accommodate explicit Wikipedia style guidelines as per MOS:QUOTE, so I would also put Shrek in italics in the quote too. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotation marks 

message: I included a sentence in this article stating that production on Hoodwinked was completed faster than most other computer animated films. Here is the source for this information (last paragraph) - http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/3%2C1
However this article (http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/3%2C1) from the same website contains this statement - "You had a staff of only 50 artists and only 15 digital artists, and yet this film was made in about three and a half years, roughly the same amount of time it takes a major animation studio to do the same type of feature."
So I am confused. Was Hoodwinked produced faster than, or in "roughly the same amount of time" as most other computer animated films? The second article states that Hoodwinked was produced in about three and a half years, however I am not sure how long most animated films are in production for.--Jpcase (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look closely at the quote it states "Not only can independents produce an animated feature these days, they can do it much faster." It seems to be talking in general terms, rather than specifically about Hoodwinked.  I would say the source that gives the actual time span (3.5 years) is the more applicable one in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. However the article is specifically about Hoodwinked, not independent animated films in general, and the statement is directly followed by a quote from someone who worked on Hoodwinked, giving a specific example of how producing Hoodwinked independently meant that they didn't have to deal with some of the problems that cause studio produced animated films to "backpedal" on production. So it seems almost definate to me that the article was talking about Hoodwinked's production length specifically, not just independent animated films in general. That being said the quote by the person who worked on Hoodwinked does not actually say that production on Hoodwinked was completed faster than on other animated films, so perhaps the person writing the article gave added meaning to the quote?--Jpcase (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you've got conflicting sources, so I would just state the length of the production without the comparison to Hollywood timetables. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice!--Jpcase (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of production 

message: From the Sally Struther section : "'Why do you need me? Sally did a great job.' I didn't want to say 'because Harvey made us.'".
And from one of the linked interviews: "As for Anne Hathaway, have you SEEN her career lately? She has skyrocketed. It’s clear to me that her involvement in the first film was a nice favor for Harvey..."
Mannafredo (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of that. --Jpcase (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to delink Harvey in the quote and instead mentioned and linked him and his brother in the main body of the article. --Jpcase (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Harvey? 

message: I feel that an image from a Rankin/Bass production could be beneficial for this page to show the visual style that Hoodwinked! attempted to emulate. I am not sure though, whether this would fall under fair use or not. Even if it does, I have no idea how to fill out the necessary form. If another editor is willing to take the time to do this, I feel that it could be a great addition to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankin/Bass Image 

message: In this recent edit , someone added Cinema Management Group as one of the film's distributors. Per these webpages   it does seem that this company had some sort of involvement with Hoodwinked!, although I'm not entirely clear on the details. I don't have the time to look into this, but if anyone else knows or can find out more information, please share it here! :) It seems to me as though CMG was probably a middle-man of some sort that connected Hoodwinked! with the Weinstein Company, and so at least until more is known, I don't think that it ought to be mentioned as a distributor in the infobox. --Jpcase (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema Management Group 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Hoodwinked!. 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/20120207124428/http://www.anderson.edu/signatures/winter06/article.html to http://www.anderson.edu/signatures/winter06/article.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121117203518/http://www.anderson.edu/w/news/2006/2006-01-11.html to http://www.anderson.edu/w/news/2006/2006-01-11.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125123858/http://www.anderson.edu/events/archive05/2005-07-21.html to http://www.anderson.edu/events/archive05/2005-07-21.html
*Added  tag to http://events.stltoday.com/reviews/show/4363-review-happily-never-after
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210040426/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113140616/http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoodwinked-22-minute-featurette/id115555255 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoodwinked-22-minute-featurette/id115555255
*Added  tag to http://voices.yahoo.com/hoodwinked-postmodern-examination-dangers-23298.html?cat=38
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hoodwinked!. 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/20121025000850/http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/orl-db-moviereviews-searchresults%2C0%2C3279701%2Cresults.formprofile?turbine_cdb_lib__cdb_01_txt=Hoodwinked&Find+it%21=Submit+Query to http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/movies/orl-db-moviereviews-searchresults,0,3279701,results.formprofile?turbine_cdb_lib__cdb_01_txt=Hoodwinked&Find+it%21=Submit+Query
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hoodwinked!. 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/20121021064740/http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/3%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/3%2C1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Hoodwinked!. 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/20130122025058/http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/2%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/2%2C1
*Added  tag to http://www.awn.com/articles/production/independence-day-growth-indie-animated-features/page/2%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720042833/http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/4%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/4%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021064649/http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/2%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/2%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720042623/http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/3%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/3%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130720041836/http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/5%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/5%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504183219/http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/4,1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/4%2C1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130417131332/http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/6,1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood/page/6%2C1
*Added  tag to http://www.awn.com/articles/talents-celebritization-vo-biz/page/3%2C1
*Added  tag to http://www.awn.com/articles/ihoodwinkedi-anatomy-independent-animated-feature/page/1%2C1
*Added  tag to http://www.awn.com/articles/production/ihoodwinkedi-blue-yonder-set-make-animation-history/page/2%2C1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If I recall, the standard convention is to list the main directors in the infobox. Co-directors are assistants to thr director; they technically did not direct the film. I know there has been some discussions before about this, but I'm thinking about getting some ideas about what should be done with the co-directors in the infobox rather than cause an edit war. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: DGA is pretty picky about the director credit and co-director isn't the director, just a high-level assistant. We should list the DGA credited director(s) only in the infobox director credit as that attribute is for the director, not the assistants. IMDb usually gets this right as a check. Animation sometimes is permitted two directors with the director credit and DGA also permits established teams, but that's about it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-directors in the infobox 

message: The official movie poster uses "Hoodwinked" in the billing block (see archived "Move Page" topic for Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3/Archive 1). Intro should read
like the "Iron Man 3" article, and all title usage within the article should exclude the exclamation mark. User9454 (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Page to Hoodwinked