Talk:Hoodwinked! - Wikipedia

The scenes with Twitchy the squirel are recored in fast forward - if you play them at cca. 60% of normal speed, Twitchy acts and sounds perfectly normal without any twitching/missing frames. Also his lips and actions are perfectly synced.

go twitchy!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.3.45.3 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

EDIT OCTOBER 29TH: Removed vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.20.75 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the correct title Hoodwinked! (with the exclaimation point)? That's how it's shown in the beginning of the actual film. AMK1211 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If the quality of the film's animation was criticized, although it was a computer-animated film, that means that most people believed it was supposed to be done in traditional animation, not computer animation.

I've read this several times and I still can't make sense of it. So you can't criticize the animation in a computer animated film or what? It _did_ look rather crappy compared to the $100.000.000+ budget films in my opinion, which is not surprising.

What? Traditional animation can look very bad as well (though I, for one, kinda liked the animation in Hoodwinked). Esn 12:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was also released at the same time as Shrek2 and suffered from a comparison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The synopsis switches tenses frequently. If anyone can be bothered fixing this, they probably should. Satchfan 09:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm adding a cleanup box. As well as switching tenses the synopsis is overlong and a grammatical mess. Lee M 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

-- Got it. I fixed it. It should do the trick. Jason Keyes 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

These two different amounts are both mentioned in the article. Which is it? Somebody who knows oughta correct this mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.92.60.79 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

I also read somewhere that it was under $8 million, though I can't remember where... --Joshua H-Star-R (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

"The book flipping by at the beginning of each sequence is tells the actual story of the movie. (Depending on the page, the original fairy tale is in there as well.)"

Can anyone make any sense of this sentence? I have no idea how to fix it. zerocity December 9 2006

How about: "The book that is seen at the beginning of each POV sequence is telling the actual story of the movie." Jason Keyes 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

is red a teenager? i think she is but im not sure

kozmic|sk8r 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's never mentioned. She looks about 10 to me. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Red Puckett is not a teenager. She's actually 8 or 9 years old, but she sounds older than that, because of Anne Hathaway's normal voice pitch. --PJ Pete

We need somebody with more time than me to put in the plot of Hoodwinked. Harley Quinn hyenaholic 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

- I have overhauled the plot summary on the main page. It solves the "too long" problem. Jason Keyes 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

ya

I removed the goof where it says about the basket's position on Red's and the wolf's story, because this is intentional as they made it this way, because the characters tell their own version of the story, and as the Wolf remembered it, the basket was lying that way.

I think this page should be moved to Hoodwinked! because in the movie, that's how the title reads. The IMDB page also has it with the exclamation mark. Apparently the DVD cover does not, so let's talk about which it should be.

The article name should be Hoodwinked!, it needs the exclamation point. GlassDesk 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reference 1 (about working title for the film) is a dead link to IMDB. IMDB does have the information in question, but I don't know to fix the template producing the link.--Noe (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are all those red links, in the Crew section, really necessary? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why are there changes in the film compared to the Brothers Grimm version? ò_ó —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.54.211 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you some kind of retard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.92.34 (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be menchine that Patrick Warburton's character The Wolf resembles his character Kronk in The Emperor's New Groove in which he talks to a squirrel. It should noted that in The Emperor's New Groove the squirrel doesn't actualy talk but Kronk "speaks squirrel". Prince Bee (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

At the end of the wikipedia story of the movie, the page says 'The next day, Flippers tells Red...'

I contend that it is NOT the next day because how could Kurt/Curt the Woodsman get into the yodeling group overnight? I think it is sometime shortly in the future and am requesting that we change this to reflect the truth.

Sergeantjoe (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it says "it borrows from the films Rashomon and The Usual Suspects" I was just wondering where exactly it borrows from "The Usual Suspects?" Jinxparkour (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The idea of everyone thinking a character is an innocent idiot but is actually the criminal mastermind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.70.209 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is this the same Todd Edwards that sang Face to Face (Daft Punk song)? --Nerd42 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why there's any mention at all of Hayden Panetierre in the cast list as she's the voice for the sequel which has not been released as of Aug '10. It clearly shows Hayden as the voice in the sequel's article (as well as Wayne Knight replacing Jim Belushi). I'm planning on removing it but wanted to see if anyone voiced a serious complaint before I did so. Bdevoe (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

This film was first released in Los Angeles, California on December 16th 2005 in order to be eligible for 2005 award consideration. It is officially considered a 2005 film and should be referred to as such on Wikipedia.--Jpcase (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

We need to find a reliable source to verify that type of information. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

How about either of these?

http://movies.about.com/od/awards/a/animate111705.htm

http://blog.moviefone.com/2005/11/18/oscar-shortlist-for-animated-feature-were-rabbit-dead-bride-an/ --Jpcase (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for digging these out. About.com isn't allowed as a reference source. (I'm unclear why myself.) Cinematical, the Moviefone blog, is OK (it's not a personal blog, which is generally disallowed), but it's dated Nov. 18, 2005. It can't verify something that happened on Dec. 16, 2005, since it hadn't happened yet.

Are there any Los Angeles movie reviews for the Dec. 16 release? That would pretty much nail it down.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here you go. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/14/entertainment/et-hoodcapsule14 The review is dated January, 14 2006, but the Editor's note references the December 16th release.--Jpcase (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! You wanna do the honors? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have read this article and found it to be informational and it gave me an objective view so as I could decide whether I wanted to review this movie. Sounds like just a bunch of petty bickering about non-issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.24.95 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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.

1. 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.
2. The plot section is too long, which is why it is tagged. Plot sections should be between 400 and 700 words; see WP:FILMPLOT.
3. 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

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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