Talk:Hoodwinked!

Hoodwinked! is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 16, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 24, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
September 3, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 27, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Animation: American / Films / Computer Mid‑importance

	Animation portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been selected for use on the Animation portal.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal 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.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Archives

1

Assessment[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've upgraded the article to 'C' class since it fills the requirements, but there are still some obvious areas for improvement.

First of all I have moved the references out of the lead since the lead should only summarise the sourced content of the article, so there is no reason to have sources in the lead if the claims are already sourced in the article. Secondly, the lead is very basic and needs some further work; the lead is more than an introduction, it should also serve as an abstract i.e. it should summarise the contents of the article for people who don't actually want to read the article. Therefore it should also include a summary of the reception, so readers know how the film was received, even if they don't read the rest of the article.
The plot section is too long, which is why it is tagged. Plot sections should be between 400 and 700 words; see WP:FILMPLOT.
The film's budget is included in the infobox, but the financing is not covered in the production section of the article, which is an obvious gap in the coverage.

These are just minor issues though, and overall it is a decent little article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

B class review[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article is fine so I'll upgrade its status to B class, I've italicised the newspapers so that is sorted. There is only one problem with the references where a statement doesn't quite match up to what is in the source so you'll have to reword that at some point or find another source. I think it might make at Good article candidate, it has good coverage and observes the policies and guidelines well. Many GA film articles have an "Inspirations/Influences" section, so if you want to take that step you could maybe add a section about the impact Shrek and Rashomon had on the making of the film if you can dig up the info. Betty Logan (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are Tom Kinney and Tom Kenny different people, or is it just a credit variation? Betty Logan (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can this be used as a reference?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Help uploading image[edit]

I created an infobox for the film's soundtrack, but unfortunately I do not know how to upload images to Wikipedia. If an editor who knows how to do this could include an image of the film's soundtrack in the infobox that would be great!--Jpcase (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the image on your compter, all you need to do is select the "Upload file" option from the left of the page and follow the instructions, making sure you select the "non-free content" option when it comes up. It's pretty easy to do, it tells you what you have to do in each step. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this only have to be done once with any image, even if the image is used in multiple articles? If so, an image of the soundtrack has already been uploaded onto a seperate article which specifically focuses on the film's soundtrack. Do I need to re-upload the image or can I simply copy the text from the other article?--Jpcase (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's already on Wikipedia you can just copy the image code into this article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Jpcase (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to upload images for the two soundtracks of the second film for use on that film's page, however I am unsure which type of nonfree work they are. I would assume that I should check off the bubble for "official cover art", however that option states that the image should be used at the top of an article and seems to indicate that the article should specifically focus on the topic of the image. As I want to use the images on an article focused on the film, not one specifically focused on the soundtrack, and as the images will not be at the top of the article, but in the section of the article focused on the soundtrack which is about half-way down the page, I am not sure if this would be the correct bubble to fill or if I should select "some other kind of non-free work". Could you clarify?--Jpcase (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not going to be used at the top of the article to identify it you should select "other non free work". It just means you will have to fill in the fair use rationale manually; make sure you state which article you are using it on in the article summary and that the image identifies the soundtrack for the film. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate all of your help, but unfortunately I am not sure how to fill out the resulting form. Is there a detailed walk-through available that would show me how to best fill out each box?--Jpcase (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you just get it uploaded and leave a note here I will fill out the forms manually for you. In the fields where you have to fill in something just write "will be filled in within 24 hours of upload" (let me know the website address where you got the image too). Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there were two seperate soundtracks released for the film, I uploaded two images. I really appreciate your willingness to help and hope that it doesn't take you too long. Here are the links to the images.

File:Hoodwinked_Too!_Hood_vs._Evil_(Original_Motion_Picture_Score)_Album_Cover.jpg

File:Hoodwinked_Too!_Hood_vs._Evil_(Original_Motion_Picture_Soundtrack)_Album_Cover.jpg--Jpcase (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under fair use guidelines, you will only be allowed to use one of those images, since you don't need two images to identify a piece of work. I suggest adding the one you want to use to the article you want to use it in and then I'll fill out the form on the one you have chosen. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to the article and filled out their licence summaries; one of them may end up being deleted though, since only one image is really needed to identify the work, but we'll see how it goes. I've swapped the two albums around too, to stop the images overlapping into the next section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all of your help! You say that only one image is necessary to identify a piece of work, but these are two individual pieces of work; not one. As I assume you were able to tell, the images are not two different covers that were used for the same album. They are the covers of two separate albums, sold separately from one another, each featuring their own distinct track list. Would this not justify the use of both images in the article?--Jpcase (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. As you can see I added both images to the article for you and filled out the fair use rationale for both of them, so you'll have to just wait and see. It depends how the fair use is interpreted in this regard, whether a reviewer thinks only one image needs to 'visually identify' the music of the film, or whether both albums are independent works that both need identifying. Everythings is filled in properly though. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First independent animated film to be eligible for the Oscars?[edit]

The interviewer here - http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/dr-toon-peek-under-hood - stated his belief that "Hoodwinked!" was the first independent animated film to be eligible for the Oscars. I'm not sure that this is true as "Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie" (2002) was independent, and couldn't even Pixar have been considered an independent studio before being bought by Disney? This being said, those films had larger distributors backing them all the way through production, while "Hoodwinked!" did not sign on with a distributor until close to the end of production. So does anyone know if "Hoodwinked!" was unique in this regard? I would like to say something about this in the article, but am not sure what would be accurate.--Jpcase (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the interview, Katie Hooten, one of the film's producers calls "Hoodwinked!" the first independent animated film to recieve a wide national release. Again, I would think that Jonah and even the Pixar films released previous to "Hoodwinked!" would make that untrue. As I said above though, it may be that "Hoodwinked!" is the first animated film to have achieved these things and to have been completely independently produced, as the other films had large distributers backing them before production even started. Can anybody explain?--Jpcase (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if you can produce counter-examples then adding inaccurate statements to the article wouldn't be in its interests. Sometimes sources just get things wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as I said, it seems to me that "Hoodwinked!" may still be distinct from those other films in some regard. I believe that "Jonah", and know for a fact that all of Pixar's films were backed by a distributor before even starting production. I know that Disney shared in the production costs of Pixar's films and even had some creative involvement, while The Weinstein Company only payed for distribution (not production) and had next to no creative involvement since they did not become involved with the film until it was almost completed. I know that "Hoodwinked!" could not have been the first independent animated film to be nominated for an oscar or to have recieved a wide national release, but could have it have been the first animated film to have been produced completely independently to have achieved these things? I don't know for sure, which is why I am asking, but it seems like a possibility.--Jpcase (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just conjecture though. Unless you know the basis for these comments it would be original research to add an interpretation to them. I don't even understand the first claim—that Hoodwinked was the first independent film to be "eligible for an Oscar". Aren't all films eligible for oscars? "Independent" is a subjective term too, and in its literal sense it simply means not produced by one of the six major Hollywood studios, so taken literally both statements are demonstrably not true. Spirited Away actually won an Oscar and was both produced completely outside of the Hollywood studio system and received a wide release, so in terms of the comments made I just don't see how how they can be correct in any meaningful way. Betty Logan (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an interview in which the director discusses the matter. http://fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html#!/2009/01/conversation-with-cory-edwards.html

This is the specific excerpt

JA: In 2005 you would write and direct your first major motion picture, Hoodwinked!, which would also be The Weinstein Company's first fully-animated feature; this was also mentioned by Todd Edwards to be the first fully independently-funded computer-animated feature film. Tell me about bringing this story to life, from the earliest stages of development to post-production.

CE: It all began when we were courting an investor in San Francisco on a number of other live action projects. When he expressed an interest in animated films, we prepared a brand new story to pitch to him, and that was Hoodwinked. I remember the day that Todd called me up and pitched me the concept: Red Riding Hood's story as a crime story, told from four different perspectives! To this day, I don't think I've seen another kid's film told like this: non-linear, with four stories crossing paths. I think that's the "steam" that got me going and kept me working on it for three years. It was such a unique concept. Hoodwinked began as a completely independent project, and for three years, we had no idea if it would be distributed. Todd and I wrote the first drafts in a coffee shop. Then Tony Leech came on to edit the story reel on his Mac while I sketched the storyboards and Todd wrote the songs. This phase was all happening in Tony's apartment! Then our producer, Sue Bea Montgomery, would come over and meet with us and kept talking to our investor. The project began with very humble aspirations; as a DVD release for young kids that might pay our bills for a while.

Thankfully, Weinsteins came in at the eleventh hour and helped vault it to a major release. They also helped us get some bigger names in the cast. Weinstein Company's involvement also inspired the investor to spring for better technology and a better sound mix -- at Skywalker Sound, no less! All of that happened very fast and then the brilliant marketing campaign from Weinstein Company (which also had to happen very fast) created this wave of audience awareness for the film just weeks before it came out. We missed the number one box office spot that weekend by only $50 grand!

And 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. Hoodwinked was made for under $8 Million, and has grossed over $150 Million worldwide. That easily makes it the most profitable animated film of its time.

So according to co-director/co-writer Todd Edwards, Hoodwinked was "the first fully independently-funded computer-animated feature film." While Cory acknowledges that other animated films had been made independently, he seems to back up the idea that Hoodwinked was the first to be completely independent. If this is true, then I feel like this might be noteworthy. As for the Oscars, not any film is actually eligible. It must play in Los Angeles, California for seven consecutive days. This disqualifies many foreign films and a number of smaller independent films. However I'm not sure anything would have to be said in this article about "Hoodwinked!" being the first of its kind to be eligible for an Oscar or receiving a wide release if it actually was the very first animated film to be completely independent, as both statements would be clearly inferred.

However I guess this all hinges on the definition of an "independent film." If, as you said, an independent film is simply anything that was produced outside of Hollywood, then I suppose many completely independent animated films had been made previous to "Hoodwinked!" However that doesn't seem to be the way in which the directors and interviewers understand the term. Of course, just because they view "independent film" as meaning something different, that doesn't mean that it does. But it does seem to me that there should be a term to specify films that were made independent of any major studio, not just American ones.--Jpcase (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog used as reference[edit]

I included this webpage as a reference - http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/cory-edwards-interviews-up.html

While I know that blogs are usually discouraged as references, I believe that this one is acceptable as it belongs to a professional journalist and features an interview with the film's director/writer. However, if anyone feels that this is not suitable as a reference, let me know and I will attempt to replace it.--Jpcase (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing is not quite enough. I think this blog will be acceptable though if you can establish it belongs to the person in question. Like Twitter accounts, blogs are only reliable if you can prove they belong to the person. Is this blog address given in a reliable source, like in a newspaper/magazine or mentioned on an official site somewhere? Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will this do? - http://ptpopcorn.com/index.php/links/--Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a dead page for me, but the site itself dosn't look like a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Betty Logan (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link didn't get posted correctly. This one should work. http://ptpopcorn.com/index.php/links/

Why wouldn't the page be considered a reliable source? It has a large staff of professional editors and writers. See here - http://ptpopcorn.com/index.php/about/

--Jpcase (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that will be ok, the site and those links look legit. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of quotation marks[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Length of production[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the advice!--Jpcase (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Harvey?[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that. --Jpcase (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rankin/Bass Image[edit]

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)[reply]

Cinema Management Group[edit]

In this recent edit [1], someone added Cinema Management Group as one of the film's distributors. Per these webpages [2] [3] 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 15:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 14:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co-directors in the infobox[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move Page to Hoodwinked[edit]

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

Hoodwinked (titled onscreen as Hoodwinked!) is a 2005...

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)[reply]