Wikipedia:Peer review/Who Framed Roger Rabbit/archive1

Who Framed Roger Rabbit edit

Failed to become a featured article a while back, but is ready for a thurough peer review. --The_stuart 13:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a short discussion comparing the film and the book Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, which IIRC, was markedly different. -- Norvy (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is well written, but I think a few of the facts in parenthesis can be left out, mainly the parts about Eddie at the circus and General Motors streetcar conspiracy, or if you have source, instead of a see also, you can rewrite it to say the General Motors streetcar conspiracy was inspiration. Acclaim needs to be moved under Critiism since in this usage of the word both positive and negative comments are included. The negative comments in Criticism need sources, preferably in Note form. I find it hard to believe anyone would criticze the film because it used too much animation! Unless they are lazy animators who don't want the bar rasied and more work. So need sources about who said those complaints, (if they are just nitpicking fans mention it in the article)

- I've heard the criticism from professional animators that much of the film is overanimated, that the characters just don't stop moving and make all sorts of arbitrary and,apparently, distracting moements. We'd probably need to find a reference for that, though. --FuriousFreddy 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this wouldn't have a place with in the article without some sort of credible refrence, otherwise it is POV plain and simple. --The_stuart 15:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found them: [1] [2] [3]. --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not much of a source (alot of things are said on internet forums), but if the "complaint" is kept in, I guess it would have to do. I still think the complaint is completely ridiculous, I mean too much animation! Maybe all animations should be done on threes? I guess all those extras in films distract the audience from the main charachters too. MechBrowman 19:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hell, why don't they just start using Syncro-Vox to cut down on all this destracting animation!--The_stuart 13:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is that the animation is "floaty"; that is, the characters are always (as in "always") moving. In natural movement, people and things stop moving at some point, and hold a pose (moving only very slightly while holding that pose). In Disney's animated features, held cels are used, but traced back" for each frame so that the line shimmers and the character doesn't "freeze". But in Roger Rabbit, most of the principals are in a constant state of movement, particularly Roger: his ears spend the entire running time doing ballet patterns and otherwise "floating" in the air. The people on that forum (all animation professioals or students) feel like the superflous movement is distracting or bothersome. Mind you, though, I don't have a problem with it--I like the floaty ears!--FuriousFreddy 21:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the animation being always on ones (actually, the crowd animation in the final shot is done on twos--guess they ran out of money), some animated movements do indeed look better on twos; ones can tend to look too glossy at times.

Triva sections are always questionable. I recommend at the very least rewriting into something that is not lists, at the very most get rid of it and move the facts somewhere else and get rid of some of them. Guessing which real world road they are planning on making seems a little silly. The same goes for Errors. Significance should probably be renamed Influence. Finally, the article is missing information about the film's themes and production. When, where and how was the film made? A short paragraph about the adaptation from the book as mentioned by Norvy would work in Production, a list of differences should be avoided though.

I've copy edited the article a bit. Still, here are my comments:

The "Cast, crew, and studio" section reads as a laundry list. So-and-so directed it. So-and-so wrote it. So-and-so composed the score. Give a credits list from IMDB, or make the section a bit less tiresome.
I combined "Acclaim" and "Criticism" into one "Critical reaction" section.
Though it is touched on in the article, some discussion of the Roger Rabbit marketing needs to be included. The animated short films were but one of many things; Disney tried to make Roger Rabbit into a character as beloved as Mickey and Donald.
The comment about the film's finale being unimaginative is oddly placed and the parenthetical "Gray" looks to be a poorly implemented internal citation.
The information in the "Trivla" section should be moved into the main article or scrapped. The bullets are interesting, but if something is too trivial to fit into a main section of an article, it doesn't need to be there. Some of the stuff about Jessica's crotch and Baby Herman's sexual gestures can be moved to "Critical reaction", for example, by discussing the reaction of watchdog groups of parental groups to the film.
Speaking of Jessica's crotch, don't use weasel words. Is it her vagina that is visible? Is it her pubic hair? The term "private area (near her crotch)" tells next to nothing.
This: "raising the question 'if it's on the VHS version too, why was only the laserdisc recalled, and if the new discs were reissued with the same flawed cel, why did they go through the trouble in the first place?'" -- is odd. It's just shy of POV, and it should probably be rephrased as a statement rather than a question.
There is no need for a section on "Other films combining live action with animation". That should be its own article.
Why does "Bozo the Clown" have a * by his name?
I deleted the part about this film marking Bugs Bunny's and Daffy Duck's animation/live-action debuts. Daffy was in You Oughta Be in Pictures long before this, and Bugs appeared in My Dream Is Yours opposite Doris Day in 1949. BrianSmithson 16:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The "(Gray)" thing was indeed a reference, poorly doen as it was, from when I had a problem with a user adding an original research criticism to the article, and added actual references that contained criticism. Bozo has a (*) by his name because he is an anachorism; I actually added that note and starred the other anachoristic characters on the list. --FuriousFreddy 14:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (*puts on "Mr. Know-it-All" cap*, sorry :)) Actually, bugs appeared in Two Guys from Texas the year before he appeared in My Dream is Yours. --FuriousFreddy 21:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if I remember correctly, in that movie, he appears during a completely animated segment. :) BrianSmithson 11:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a screen shot some where of the scene where Jessica reveals her womenly secret to the world, is it worth adding to this article?--The_stuart 15:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors, but that might be a bit too much. --FuriousFreddy 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can incorporate the snopes article as a reference, which has screen shots.[4]. IIRC, the laserdisc recall was due to the fact that one of the controversial frames was right at the beginning of a chapter, making it very easy to find, as opposed to the VHS, which didn't have a chapter index. -- Norvy (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good article overall, but I agree, some discussion of the film versus the book (similarities, such as Baby Herman basically being taken whole cloth, but differences, such as a stronger emphasis in the book on toon/human segregation and Toon Town as a ghetto) would be useful. Also, I took the liberty of removing Bozo. I don't have the DVD handy to take screengrabs, but watch again. The clown is not Bozo, but *Koko* the clown. He can be glimpsed briefly outside Maroon Studios, in his usual black and white attire, but surfaces in the finale, now in color and with hair. He does look almost Bozo-esque there, but not entirely. I also added a couple of cameos (Mr. Toad and Marvin the Martian); I had a longer list somewhere, but can't locate it at present. Finally, I reworded a bit early on, about the film being the "last star turn" for voices from the Golden Age. The only performers for whom this was their final animation role were Mel Blanc, as mentioned, who died not long after, and Mae Questel (who would live for another decade, but without reprising Betty Boop). The other voice actors were either not from the Golden Age, or are still around, like June Foray. Also, it strikes me that perhaps there should probably be some mention of Stubby Kaye (Marvin Acme) in the article, as this was one of his last, notable film roles as well, but your call, or perhaps a refrence to the fact that Chuck Jones was credited as a consultant on the film (along with veteran Disney assistanty Walt Stanchfield, and Stan Green, former assistant to Milt Kahl who also worked with Ralph Bakshi). And one more anchronism, though not in character appearances per se: when Roger and Eddie are watching a Goofy short, the cartoon in question is Goofy Gymnastics from 1949. Just some thoughts. Aleal 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]