Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler

message: Recieved a 40% rating via Rotten Tomatoes for the 1995 Miramax version (Arabian Knights). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotten Tomatoes review 

message: Not only that the claim for this film being an art film is unsourced and I couldn't find references to it being one anywhere, the fact is that none of the majors scholars of art film (e.g., Ray Carney, Susan Sontag, etc.) - indeed, no major scholar of any art form whatsoever - consider cartoon flicks (one can call them animation if one so wishes) to be art films. One can go to http://people.bu.edu/rcarney (or http://insidebostonuniversity.blogspot.co.il) and, using Google, search for "Disney," "Cartoons," etc. and see for oneself. I have never seen either this film or its director being mentioned by serious scholars as belonging to the canon of art film. The film's director, unlike the director of any other film listed in the "Art films" category, is also not mentioned in Wikipedia's List of directors associated with art film category. Cartoon flicks also cannot be art films due to the very fact that so-called "animation," no matter how sophisticated, cannot capture the nuances of facial gestures, vocal registers, emotional subtleties, etc., which are the very purpose of art film (and art generally). If anyone here have references that show otherwise or go against anything that I have just said, please do post it here as I would highly appreciate it. The bottom line is: Does anyone here seriously belive that this Hollywood-produced cartoon - and I think it goes without saying that Hollywood-produced films cannot by definition be art films (again, read Carney's website) - belongs in the same category with the works of Dreyer, Tarkovsky, Costa, Bresson, Kiarostami, Syberberg, Akerman, Cassavetes, etc.? Does this movie have anything to teach us about life and society or is it just escapist entertainment? Will it help us improve our lives, understand people and the complexities of human interactions better, bestow upon us a complex emotional experience, etc.? I think not. Further support for this flick not being an art film is the fact that it was distributed by Majestic Films, Miramax Family Films, and Miramax Family Films/Lionsgate Home Entertainment, i.e., "family" - i.e., kids - affiliated and oriented companies, at once even associated with Disney... Also, I've found out that this movie's director has previously worked on such flicks as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Doesn't sound like something a director of art films would do. In conclusion, I would highly suggest that this entry be removed from the "Art film" category. Thanks!
109.186.234.86 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: per Wikipedia:Edit_requests#General_considerations. Request appears controversial (being made midway through ongoing discussion in the previous section) and the reason this article is locked is due to the requester's edit warring over this exact change. --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @109.186.234.86 (talk) I would recommend doing a bit more research before bringing this up again if you feel the need to press the point. For instance, this film was actually independently produced for the majority of its production. I think most of your concerns about this not being an art film would be addressed by watching the Recobbled Cut of this film on YouTube, which features many of the characteristics of art films that you mention (these were lost in the Miramax cut). If after watching that you still feel that this should not be categorized as an art film, feel free to bring it up again. Luthien22 (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 1 August 2013:Please Remove "The Thief and the Cobbler" from Category:Art films 

message: Are there really that many people who sincerely think that whether a Wikipedia page has a little blue link at the bottom saying "art film" or not matters enough to be worth spending this much time and effort on? Surely, surely, this must be a joke. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I believe its one of the discussions that kind of got away from us, probably due to some heated exchanges and stubbornness. Sergecross73 msg me  16:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joke? 

message: Category:Media franchises
75.80.129.37 (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a franchise, is it? Doesn't franchise imply it's a series? This is all essentially different cuts of one movie, right? Sergecross73 msg me  15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  there have been a lot of recent similar request for :Category:Media franchises to be added to movies and such.  I've closed them all as "Question" asking how they think a single movie is a franchise.  I'm under the impression that a franchise is a company, like the studio that created the movie or the distributors for the movie (like Mirimax), but not the movie itself.  I've gotten 0 replies so far. —  (e • t • c) 22:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a franchise is a license which implies a brand, not a series.  Just look it up.  (Franchising)  In practice, it often follows existing commercial success, which often then also precedes a series — but not always. Some things could be created just to be franchise-licensed, for someone else to then create a product.  It's a matter of strategy and ability. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014 

message: The lists of differences between versions are far too detailed, and the bulleted lists are entirely unsourced. We should cut these down to paragraphs that sum up the main differences between versions. --McGeddon (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: McGeddon you're probably right about this, although you could easily make a case for the current version. Maybe a chart showing the differences between the version, like the cast chart, would be the best approach? Luthien22 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Completely agree. IPs are always coming in and bloating the plot section, which is far too long per WP:PLOTSUM. I just don't know the plot enough to trim it down personally... Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sergecross73 msg me do you think a chart would work (like the cast one that's already in the article)? If so, I can make that pretty soon. Luthien22 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong plot sections 

message: Williams was given a copy of the film before he passed away
Yes, obviously it was before he passed away. (And it was around 2015, so not even close to his death.)2A02:AA1:1011:99F2:44F5:9767:3E68:F131 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RW receives present while still being alive 

message: An encyclobox is a userbox telling users a fact about something. In this case, for this encyclobox I made for The Thief and the Cobbler, it tells you that the animated film took around 3 decades to make:
I𝚒𝚊𝚜!:𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚋□𝚡I 04:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have this regular userbox with a The Thief and the Cobbler theme:
I,,.iasO 08:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Thief and the Cobbler''-themed encyclobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: As the article mentions, the film was clearly finished, just without Williams' involvement.  I wanted to point that out here before removing the reference in the opening sentence, in case anyone wants to argue that a film that was released twice can be considered unfinished. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unfinished" 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112389/alternateversions/?tab=cz&ref_=tt_trv_alt. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 17:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed