Talk:The Snowman

message: I initially thought that this was when the events depicted take place. But repeated viewings through the years the years have brought up a few other ideas.
# There are no presents under the tree and the boy is showing off his new toys to the Snowman at one point. This would seem to put it after the traditional unwrapping of presents in the U.K.
# During their flight over the ocean they pass a ship where a party is in progress. One of the revelers is drinking champagne and does a double take as he sees them fly by. It seems more like a New Year's Eve party. 
# The snowmen/women party at the North Pole finds Santa and his reindeer happily ensconced in their home. They don't seem to be rushing off, or returning from their round the world flight.
I know that there are valid arguments to be made against this, especially the events of the sequel "Father Christmas" (but this didn't come along until 1987), and it is not important in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to note them here to justify my addition to this article.MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought it was Christmas Eve, but all your points make sense.  Maybe it is New Year's Eve. JP Godfrey 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Day Appears to be Christmas Eve 

message: According to the synopsis on the official website, the boy's name is James. I didn't want to mess up anyone's work in case they didn't agree so I'll just leave it for someone else to update.--Thetriangleguy 21:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His present's wrapping reads "James, Brighton". --130.214.17.20 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more, I think that in the current intro, Father Christmas refers the boy as such, doesn't he? (he even remembers the boy, too.) Visokor (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "James" 

message: I know this isn't really the place to mention it, but after Bowie makes his speech and it enters animation, we see an owl fly over the screen. Much the same as in Labyrinth where the same actor/singer becomes an owl...just a random thought. DarkMithras  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.129 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowie and Owls 

message: This page says the book was released in 1980. The article on Raymond Briggs says 1978. Which is correct? BillyH 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year? 

message: The original soundtrack singer was Peter Auty.  Aled Jones was more popular on the radio, soon after the original release.  Later re-releases of the film appear to substitute Aled Jones.  Is this really true?  Is Peter Auty being credited, but not actually included? 69.87.193.97 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: alternate singer

message: There doesn't seem to be an agreement on the original Channel 4 broadcast date. IMDb says the 26th, but we also have had the 24th and the 31st. Is there any way of finding the true date out from a reliable source?
:I wouldn't trust IMDB for a reliable source. I suggest looking it up in a book, or finding a more authoritive source. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 80s and early 90s I remember it being shown either on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve.  Channel 4's annual showing is definitely on Christmas Eve nowadays.80.0.154.147 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original UK release date 

message: What is the broadcast history in the US and the rest of the world?
-69.87.203.150 (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast history in US 

message: US versions:
* 1982/1993 Columbia TriStar NTSC VHS; ; UPC 1157501413
: (Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
* 1998 DVD NTSC fullscreen; ; UPC 4339603227
: (Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
: combines:
:: The Snowman 1993 29 min; and
:: Father Christmas 1997 25 min (including material from Father Christmas Goes on Holiday) 
* 2006 Sony Pictures; DVD NTSC fullscreen; ; UPC 4339616436
: (Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
::The DVD box has "with a special introduction by David Bowie" clearly marked on the back, but actually the David Bowie introduction is not on the DVD.
:: English or French soundtrack and subtitles.  The French version dubs the intro voice, dubs in a French singer, and replaces the entire soundtrack and music, in mostly minor ways. No scene selection option.
Korean version:
* DVD 2003-FVCD16, World Movie Sky Cinema, NTSC all region; UPC 8809151396046 KOM03863-PS5010
: Although the cover art and DVD menu are almost entirely Korean, the actual DVD program contents are entirely the original standard English version, with the Raymond Briggs introduction.  There are no subtitle or alternate language options, but a scene/chapter selection feature has been added.
-96.233.30.113 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication history (film) 

message: I remember (though it could be a "false memory") that I encountered a story very similar to Briggs's "The snowman" before 1978, in a printed version with no illustrations, just text. I think it was a short story in a collection of stories. The style was rather like Hans Christian Andersen, but I'm not thinking of his story "The Snowman", which doesn't have much in common with Briggs's story. The story I remember reading has one feature that distinguishes it from both Briggs's and Andersen's stories: there's a bit at the end with the boy looking up at a cloud and thinking that the snowman has turned into that cloud. Have I confabulated all this, or does someone else know the story I'm talking about here? If it were the case that Briggs's story borrows heavily from a previous story it would certainly be worth mentioning that in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.28.145 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents 

message: :
This is a short film, so poster or DVD cover is prefered to screencap. Screencaps are prefered for TV shows, because that's how they are recognized; every time a TV show starts, you see the title the same way, so that's how the viewer comes to picture the title. Not so with a FILM, like the Snowman. The fact it debuted on TV is irrelevant.
Here's another example: Bang Bang You're Dead (film) Film Fan (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally agree here, the convention at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Image is that for television productions, which this clearly is, a screenshot is preferable to a DVD cover. To my eye it captures the "look" of the film much better than the "2004 special edition DVD" cover, which is evidently a much later creation by a graphic designer (the mountains in the background are not very representative of the film style, etc). Anyway, I'm afraid I've reached my WP:3RR limit with this, so somebody else can decide. Bob talk 23:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a one off TV special that was later shown as a film in many venues - I first saw it in a movie theater here in Colorado. It seems to have been nominated for both film and TV awards. The screenshot title makes more sense when it is a recurring series where you see the same opening titles for at a period of time - usually a year or two depending on the series. That does not apply here. Also there have been three different openings only one of which used the fade from Briggs to the titles pictured. Conversely there have been several different DVD covers. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other so I would suggest that you post a request for input at both the Film and TV projects talk page and if that does not satisfy either of you please proceed to dispute resolution. I don't want to see either of you blocked for edit warring. I also know that I have not satisfied either of you so my apologies for that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Image talks about television shows, not telefilms, Bob. A telefilm is a film -- not a TV show. Thanks for your input, MarnetteD. Film Fan (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox image

message: : This experiment follows up #Layout after several months.
I have collected everything about the film as New section 1 and drafted a new second paragraph in the lead. For simplicity there are no other changes except sequence, headings, and levels of intact sections. In this marked-up version of the old Contents, zero (0) represents the lead in two parts.  
: (0 lead paragraph on the book)
:: —insert draft short paragraph on the film
: (0 three paragraphs on the film) —section 1.0
:    1 Plot of the film —subsection 1.1
:    2 Plot of the book
:    3 Alternative beginnings —subsection 1.2
:    4 Production notes —subsection 1.3
:    5 Stage version
:    6 New version —subsection 1.4
:    7 See also
:    8 Notes
:    9 References
:    10 External links
Old sections 2, 5, and 7-10 are New sections 2, 3, and 4-7.
Is this an improvement? (IIUC, here are permanent links to the two versions: 1:59 Old; 18:18 New.) If this generally works, the lead needs attention and some later tweaks may be necessary. --P64 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement (Film, Book, Stage) 

message: Why is this referred to as the "2012 version"? As I understand it, it's a completely new film with the same character. Would we refer to The Empire Strikes Back as the "1980 version of Star Wars"? Seems rather odd. BearAllen (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been wondering the same thing. IMO the info about it should be spun off into its own article with a mention of this one in its lede. Then this article could have a brief mention of it with a link to the new article. If you or anyone else wants to take on this task it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 version: The Snowman and the Snowdog 

message: The rabbits scatter - the pheasants fly away in fear - the horse gallops away - even the owl turns its head because it has been disturbed bt the sound of the machine. To use a word like encountered does not accurately describe what is seen onscreen. MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The snowman also creates terror among the penguins(?!), causing them to have a nasty bump, Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The animals

message: The "Father Christmas" Raymond Briggs graphic novel on wikipedia has separate articles for the book and the animation. Should we consider the same approach for "The Snowman"?
At the moment there seems to be a lot of bleed through between them in the article, for example the The_Snowman#Book section starts with the line "The original book has a slightly different plot.", which makes no sense in isolation, and requires the reader to have read the synopsis of the animation in the preceding section.
Has this been discussed before? Pros/Cons? 
--SnowmanJames (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would make a lot of sense, as you say it's pretty unclear all the way through which iteration is being discussed - weirdly, even though the picture book was the first, I suspect the animated film would be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Bob talk 18:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not enough sourced info to merit two articles. This one can be improved to delineate between the two. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To further illustrate my point the Father Christmas (1991 film) is completely unsourced and consists of an overlong plot section and the rest is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Father Christmas (comics) has some sourcing but also contains a large amount of OR that is WP:POV. IMO it would be more useful to merge those two articles than to split this one. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate articles for book and animation? 

message: What's this all about? The quote is clearly referring to the story, rather than the snowman within the story, and the story is called The Snowman. Here's the quote in the film introduction. — Film Fan 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. The close caption also uses lower case BTW. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On what?? — Film Fan 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: DVDs. I have both the UK and US DVDs and the lower case is used on both. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not going to just take your word for it, and the title comes up onscreen as he says "The Snowman". Pretty unambiguous. — Film Fan 02:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Briggs quote 

message: This should really be split into two distinct articles, one for the book and one for the film, as this article is ostensibly primarily about the book, yet gets overshadowed by the film.  212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, it's been discussed before and I think it's fairly certain that the animated film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I've been bold and split the sections about the book into a separate article. Bob talk 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: And the book too.--107.77.173.19 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  It has a happy ending.