Jump to content

Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 201.52.229.251 (talk) at 11:21, 14 February 2019 (→Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a Historically Inaccurately.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWho Framed Roger Rabbit has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 5, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 19, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 13, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 7, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


Reception

This is an good article on one of my favorite movies. But what it does seem to be lacking is an reception section mainly on how it's reviewed and it's awards. Did the article even mention that it won (I think) 3 acadamy awards. If so sorry I haven't seen it yet. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I eventually notice it was on the Release section. Jhenderson 777 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison ford source

The page says that steven speilberg wanted Harrison Ford to play eddie at first. can someone please give me the source of that info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.60.5 (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?

Okay, is there even proof that a Roger Rabbit sequel will be out 2012? 64.83.204.146 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB has some (minimal) information. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no proof that a Roger Rabbit sequel will be out 2012. I've removed the information. Please do not add any sequel information without citing a reliable source. If anyone sees sequel information without a citation, please remove it. - kollision (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few mistakes

In the cinema, Hoskins calls him "Ron". In a bar when he drinks something, the drink can be seen splashing out of the back of his head showing that he is not really there. (Cyberia3 (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While interesting, such continuity errors aren't really notable for this article. You might want to take a look at Movie Mistakes and see if they know of them or any others. --McDoobAU93 22:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there was a game released for the amiga

perhaps that should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship section

A new section entitled "Censorship" has been added to the article.

In addition to appearing to be original research, I also think it's unnecessary. There isn't a movie of any type that isn't edited for content before being broadcast on a television channel. That this was done to this film isn't exactly news. —Al E.(talk) 17:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then.AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Media

I remember some spin-off comics published by Disney Comics but cannot remember any titles. Does anyone have any information on these? --70.31.133.163 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check here. Jhenderson 777 00:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast listing

I have cut down the cast listed in the article, per WP:FILMCAST:

A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are numerous cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose.

Some of the characters listed had only a line or two, and Dumbo had no "lines" at all. Trivialist (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all meet at least three of the five criteria mentioned in the guideline:
  1. Blue links;
  2. Cast list in a reliable source (IMDb has been decided as a WP:RS for cast lists a long time ago, you're welcome to look into the relevant Wikitalk);
  3. Billing (none of the actors is listed as uncredited).
As I mentioned in the appropriate edit summary, excluding actors is offensive, unethical, and shouldn't be done as a general rule. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We exclude actors ALL. THE. TIME. We do not provide IMDb style cast lists, we never have, I defy you to find me a quality article that does. "Additional voices" or "voice of shoes" falls into the unnecessary cast section. And unethical? God I just burst a blood vessel, I hate when people try to use that over something so trivial. I can see the protesters rallying around Wikipedia's offices right now, "SHOES ARE PEOPLE TOO". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general encyclopedia article; it's not intended to be exhaustive about every element of its topic. ALso, "offensive" and "unethical" may be overstating things; characters with one line and a few seconds of screen time aren't as important to the overall movie as the main cast is. Though since this film's cast has a lot of blue links, perhaps listing the cast separately in a few columns, as suggested in WP:FILMCAST, would be appropriate. Trivialist (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwarriorblake, before your sarcasm turns into a complete persona on its own, it's not "shoes are people too", it's "actors deserve credit for their work, small as it may be". Trivialist, I might have used hyperboles but you got my point, and that was the purpose. Your idea of listing the cast in separate columns sounds fine, is it a consensus then? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christ died for this? This!? To see Hearformewesique turn nice and neat prose into a long list of nobody minor voice over roles separated into arbitrary sections including one containing just two people. This is not a compromise and I'm not sure why we are compromising when it's only Hearformewesique arguing for the inclusion of minor roles which we happily exclude from every other article because we are not and never should be IMDb. If you'll excuse the sarcasm. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is not a shouting contest. Trivialist raised a good point, and because you were nowhere to be found it has become the consensus. Read again what a consensus is. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, while I agree with Darkwarriorblake's position, we still need a strong consensus from uninvolved editors as I see a weak consensus so far. I am bringing this up at WT:FILM. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody uninvolved with the discussion so far, I do see this as making a mountain out of a mole hill. That said, I think this particular film is a little unique compared to a typical film, as the film was more or less a showboat of characters from previous films and popular entertainment. That is sort of the charm of this movie, and the characters which appear are memorable even if their parts are very minor. A film which seems to share similar qualities is Forrest Gump, if you need to see some sort of precedence on something like this. Some sort of compromise between the two positions could certainly be made here as I find the edit war a little obnoxious as two extremes. It almost seems to be mostly a complaint about formatting the information rather than having the information presented as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the live-action cameos are trivia and can be dropped, but I mainly agree with Robert in that the main selling point of the film was all these cartoon characters appearing together, so it's reasonable to cover that aspect of the casting. That said, a single column bullet list with no accompanying prose that only occupies about a third of the width looks poor aesthetically. Witchfinder General (film)#Casting looks like a good approach to me for this article, in that it strikes a balance between prose and just listing names. Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...in other words, the pre-dispute version. And to Robert Horning – it is about having the information presented, as well as Darkwarriorblake's utterly infantile tone that suits RPG forums at best. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?

Should every speaking character actor be mentioned in the Who Framed Roger Rabbit article's cast section? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty desperate... I mean, there is a formed consensus in the section above, following SJones' request for additional opinions on WT:FILM. I'm proposing to close this RfC per WP:POINT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I feel that we still need consensus from uninvolved editors so we can resolve this dispute. Since the edits have created controversy, a discussion was necessary. I never intend to be disruptive to prove a point and since this dispute is ongoing, I have proposed an RfC to get more uninvolved editors to ask for an opinion on this matter. Three editors (me, Trivialist and Darkwarriorblake) have argued for the exclusion of minor roles (even if they do have one speaking line) per WP:MOSFILM#Cast, but unfortunately this dispute is still ongoing. I feel that we still need a consensus from more uninvolved users be provided as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing anyone mention a more detailed listing at List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters, so if we are talking about mentioning the actors in this particular space, I think it is worthwhile to include them. Here, it looks like either the actor and/or the role is discriminate as evidenced by blue links for one or the other. I think this is beneficial in terms of cross-navigation. In contrast, unlinked actors or roles are less valuable. (Even if the actor is linked, the person may be a relative unknown with a mere filmography in the article.) If possible, I would recommend using a table to list the voice actors and their roles, in either two or three columns, for better readability and grouping. (Surf Ninjas does this with the main cast, but the table code could be used here.) Erik (talk | contribs) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I am seeing here is that Hearfouretc. is arguing that there are notable cartoon characters and they should be listed. Ok. Then what is "and Tress MacNeille, Corey Burton and Peter Cullen provided additional voices"? Is additional voices the weird mirror version of Jessica Rabbit? Because to me it sounds like nobody notable and it's there purely to keep on listing more and more cast. Or this "Pat Buttram, Jim Cummings, and Jim Gallant voiced some bullets,". Some bullets? These are not notable roles and goes beyond listing notable cartoon characters. That entire section should also just be reworded so it reads character (voice actor) instead of the roundabout bloated way it is attempting to handle it now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about tabling voice actors and roles where the characters are noteworthy? We could just group voice actors who did unnamed roles (like "some bullets"), especially if there are blue links in the set. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these actors have blue links. It's practically an all star cast, and even those who voice bullets and shoes are veteran cartoon voiceovers. This is why the pre-dispute version works... it just does. Tabling could work too, I tried a simple bulleted list but it was reverted on sight. Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Sjones23: Trivialist was not in agreement with you, he actually sided with me but offered to list those actors in a few columns. Basically, the consensus seems to steer in that direction again. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, wait, wait, I'm not sure that I side with anyone at the moment. My original issue was that there were cast members listed who had maybe one line, and it seemed excessive. Now I'm pretty much with Betty Logan's suggestion above, collecting the notable miscellaneous cast members (i.e., bluelinks) in one paragraph or bullet item or whatever. For example, listing Pat Buttram and Jim Cummings as voicing the cartoon bullets would be okay, because they're both known performers, and their characters had a few lines; Mary Radford as Hyacinth Hippo not so much, because it was one line (I believe), and Radford is less well known. Also, Hearfourmewesique seems a bit overeager to assume that a consensus has been reached based on one or two users expressing mild opinions; I don't think I have strong enough feelings on this to be part of any consensus, and I seem to be the one who accidentally triggered this whole thing! Trivialist (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand your stance on this clearly: are you OK with blue linked actors to be included in the list? (Quick reminder: there are almost no actors in the pre-dispute version that don't have those.) Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's a separate article on Roger Rabbit voice actors, I'm not sure we need anything other than the main performers and the "additional detailed article" link. I also would like to see this whole thing source — are these all onscreen credits? If so, we should say that. I would also like to lose a couple of instances of unsourced commentary ("and provides a comical role which shows her falling for Eddie and pursuing him"). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to state that the credits are onscreen if we have WP:FILM to avoid this type of bureaucracy?
  • To sum up a few of the opinions so far:
    1. Trivialist: blue links, more than just one or two lines;
    2. Erik: blue links, doesn't matter how many lines, table;
    3. Robert Horning: blue links, doesn't matter how many lines;
    4. Betty Logan: blue links, doesn't matter how many lines, prose.
I guess it is safe to conclude that the general consensus is "blue links", and now all we have left is to decide between prose and table. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't just condone the indiscriminate addition of blue linked cast members, so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I can see why Hearfourmewesique interpreted my comment that way, since it was vague. I have certain rules of thumb for what I include in cast lists, so I will just list them clearly:
  1. Include all cast members who play characters mentioned in the plot summary;
  2. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should document all cast members whose casting is the subject of sourced commentary (this can be anything from how they got the part to how they played the part, but it doesn't include general credit lists—the idea here is that if a respected publication has deemed the cast member notable enough to write about);
  3. In the case of real-life films, we often include cast members who played notable real-life counterparts, and I believe this analogy can be extended to the special case of this film, so any cast member that played a notable animated character i.e. a blue-linked character.
I'm not saying that any cast member that lies outside of this catchment should be omitted, but a case needs to be made for their inclusion. As for the presentation, that doesn't particularly concern me but let's try and make it look integrated into the article i.e. prose, a table etc. Betty Logan (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further RfC unrelated debate between Hearfourmewesique, Darkwarriorblake and Sjones23

    • With respect to yourself, you began this edit war, I did not. Even if Trivialist did side with you, please wait until we can gain a clear consensus from other project editors. And also, please stop communicating with others in edit summaries. Also, even if they have an all star cast, I think that we should not list excessively minor roles. bulleted lists should not work as the minor roles should be in prose format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if there were a consensus and waited almost a week before editing. You were nowhere to be found, yet as soon as I edited you reverted me. This happened twice – who exactly edit warred vs. conversing on the talk page? Now, as for prose vs. lists, the consensus, as it appears at this moment, is for a table with several columns, which will be created in the next few days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I agree with Darkwarriorblake that the minor roles are really non-notable and additional voices are excessive. The cast list is not meant to be a list of every single voice actor, speaking or otherwise. I had to revert the pre-dispute version, because I felt that there was actually no strong resolution or consensus. And as I have stated, we still need a strong consensus from other uninvolved editors to form a resolution that satisfies all parties. The above discussion was actually a weak consensus, but we still need more stronger consensus on the matter presented here so we can come up with an agreement and bring this to a swifter resolution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, even after every editor, aside from you and Darkwarriorwhatever agreed with me and presented a number of valid arguments to support this stance, you still demand a stronger consensus. You're really stretching the limits of WP:POINT here, not to mention that continuous tendentious revert war – we need to keep the pre-dispute version until the dispute has been resolved. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tiresome and no, I am clearly not disrupting to prove a point by a long shot. But do watch out for the boomerang effect. Let's let this RFC stand for a little while and see if other editors are going to weigh in, shall we? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny of you to invoke IDHT when you're the one who keeps ignoring the fact that every other editor that comes to weigh in supports my stance, following your feedback request on the Wikitalk and via the RfC. But by all means, this completely non-deliberate exhaustion attempt is not disruptive, and by no means is it there to make a point, nor would it be to try and appeal to other language Wiki communities in an attempt to gain consensus in your favor. Also, your constant reverts that keep deviating from the pre-dispute version (which is the standard BRD practice) are extremely helpful to the whole of Wikipedia community, and saying that Trivialist supported you when he actually supported me (but not to try and bias the RfC!) was an honest mistake. Good for you. Oh, and the friendly boomerang warning there? Not a threat at all, I get it, buddy! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have agreed that some of the added cast should be there if purely for the character's notability, I've seen no-one defending the assortment of "additional voices" or bullet voiceovers that were also added. I've never, in my life, heard anyone say "Hey, we should go watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Tress MacNeille totally voices a random thing in it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not built on your personal experiences with people saying stuff. Also, I am going to go ahead and move this back and forth out of the RfC. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately however it is built on logic, so "I think she should be in the article because she was in the film but we don't know as what" is not an excuse to add her or anyone else. You want to add the voice of a random hippo, maybe you can argue for that, additional voice actress? No. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stooge

I was wondering if information on The Stooge cited hereincluding Roger's character should be put on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeydisneylover (talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems much too early. Trivialist (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cameos in the Movie Removed

It appears that the list of cameos in Who Framed Roger Rabbit was removed off the characters list a while back. A seprate page about the cartoon characters from Disney, Warner Bros, MGM, and Universal Studios that appeared in cameos in the film needs to be made. I might make the artical myself. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Jacob Chesley[reply]

It was removed because it was a largely unsourced list of trivia. I remember at least one contributor apparently adding characters based on who they saw (or thought they saw) while going frame-by-frame through the closing scene. Trivialist (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of "dip"

I believe that the "dip" combination -- benzene+turpentine+kerosene -- would dissolve celluloid film, so the linkage here is that you would kill a "toon" by dissolving the celluloid film that composes it. Can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually comprised of turpentine, acetone, and benzene, the three main ingredients in the solution used to remove ink from cells in the days of hand-drawn animation. It's a bit of an inside joke.50.168.176.243 (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green-lit price

The original budget was projected at $50 million, which Disney felt was too expensive.[4] Roger Rabbit was finally green-lit when the budget went down to $70 million

There's something wrong with the numbers there. $50 million was too expensive, but going down (?) to $70 million was better? --80.222.116.28 (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely considered as one of the best films of 1988"

In this edit I removed the statement "widely considered as one of the best films of 1988" because it seems excessively fluffy to me. We don't source this analysis to a specific voice, rather, we use Siskel's and Ebert's additions to their "top 10 films of 1988" lists to support the statement. That doesn't adequately support "widely", and I think the statement should be directly attributed, not summarized from two cherrypicked examples. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road Runner in 1947?!?!?

Road Runner and Wile E. didn't exist until 1949, yet they appear in this film, which was meant to be set in 1947. Looks like Touchstone didn't do enough research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.177.205 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous casting claims

An IP is persisting in making two claims that are not supported by the present sources:

  1. John Cleese expressed his interest in playing Judge Doom, but both Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis refused.
  2. Jon Pertwee was considered for the role

Neither the existing source nor the newly supplied source (both of which are dubious quality] mention Jon Pertwee at all. Neither state that Cleese was "interested" in the role, both saying he was just "considered". I am reverting these changes because all claims should conform with WP:Verifiability. Please do not reinstate them without explicitly providing a source that corroborates them. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't say that I'm keen on the changes, either. My first thought was that it was coming from the IMDb trivia, but even that doesn't mention Pertwee. It seems possibly made up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Who Framed Roger Rabbit. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Who Framed Roger Rabbit. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't discussing The Stooge be important?

I'm friends with Gary K. Wolf on Facebook, and we're both members on a Roger Rabbit club on Facebook, and he's been mentioning a project Disney has been trying to get off the ground for several years now, called "The Stooge", which co-stars Mickey Mouse and Roger Rabbit. I would add a source myself, but every time I DO, my edits get reverted for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So the admin or whoever is running this page with an iron fist, this is a suggestion for an improvement to the article Dpm12 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources. If all you have are rumors, we can't work with that. --Masem (t) 19:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Characters

I understand that there was an AfD discussion which resulted in the separate characters article being deleted and the content being "selectively merged" here, but why did that require creating a separate characters section that repeats information from the cast section? And why did we need information about some of these minor characters at all? It seems this merge was not nearly "selective" enough. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that strange to me. Sometimes I have carried out merges in areas I don't operate and it is fairly common practice to "dump" the material in and then let the editors who work on the article integrate it. That is most likely what has happened here. The content is part of this article now the merge has taken place, and the sections can be joined up and content can be deleted. A merge does not dictate editorial decisions after the merge has taken place. It is up to this article's editors now how much of that content is retained and how it is presented. I recall one extreme case where a merge took place and all the imported content ended up being deleted! Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposedly a good article though. So I hope the material dumped will definitely be improvised and cited in the near future. Also does Eddie Valiant really need his own article? Jhenderson 777 18:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Film Registry list designation

There are a number of uses of this phrase which i paraphrase here that basically is to uphold why a film has been placed on such a list. The whole point of the list is that it has a particular level of impact and relevancy on society and as such such be, according to the enabling legislation, preserved etc. These films do not just jiump off a piece of paper and land on the list. There is a vetting process and if by the end it lands on the list then yes it does have what it shpuld have for society etc. To say so each time in a WP article is sort of making a mayonnaise white bread sandwich--there is nothing there. What we should have in the film articles hat should also mention being on the National Firm Registry list is WHY THEY DESERVE TO BE ON THE LIST. That informstion is clearly to be found on the appropriate Library of Congress website for the Film Board. All we have to do is link them up and automatically supply citations. That is what i did here. I put some straw in the mud, made some bricks linking back to the sources and then transferred. Just because your system views this as vandalism is the dault of the the system not recognising what is happening. We use the internet and we use compuetrs so why not let them help us get the job done.2605:E000:9143:7000:995A:C286:EE14:C81D (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, nothing more need be done. The claims are cited to the proper source where further information can be found. We certainly do not need to add further details or citations to the lede sections of articles, as you have been doing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is indulgent, and certainly overkill to repeat the blurb in the lead. Is there any film in the National Film Registry that isn't regarded as "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"? It's just the blurb. It would be like a saying the Best Picture winner at the oscars won the award for "outstanding achievement in motion picture art" in each and every case. It is reasonable to cover it in the main body of the article but I think it is sufficient to simply state the film has been added to the National Film Registry in the lead itself. This is the approach taken at Gone with the Wind (film) which briefly mentions the National Film Registry in the lead while Gone with the Wind (film)#Industry recognition explains what that exactly entails. Betty Logan (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized that most of what I have written is largely irrelevant (I should have looked at the dispute more carefully) and that TheOldJacobite has restored the version I mostly advocate. I am going to tighten the wording up slightly though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Betty Logan. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast List

There seems to be a dispute on the Cast list over whether Kathleen Turner and Amy Irving, the speaking and singing voices of Jessica Rabbit, should be listed there despite the former not being credited. What's the right way to do it? Would it help if someone sourced Turner's involvement? Irving is credited as performer of "Why don't you do right?", Jessica's song in the movie. Crboyer (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the role is uncredited, it should not be listed in the cast. With a source, it could be discussed in the production section. I moved Amy Irving's role to the "additional voices" subsection. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shes listed on her own page as playing the role, there numerous sources pointing out that she did, even TheOldJacobite himself says she did, wikipedia is not censored and there no logical reason, requirement or argument the leave her out.86.179.135.115 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of censorship, and to claim it is smacks of zealotry. Generally Wikipedia uses the cast list in the film itself when deciding who should and shouldn't appear in the cast list of an article. In this case Turner doesn't appear in the film cast list, ergo she doesn't appear in the article cast list. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Chaheel Riens. And, as I said above, her role could be discussed in the production section, if we have a source that talks about why she was uncredited. That could be illuminating. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Nash

The article claims archival voice samples of Clarence Nash (Donald Duck's original VO) was used in the film. I'm not certain this is true. The citation given links to a YouTube video which has since been deleted. On what I can only assume is the reupload of this video (as it's the same title), it's a video of the Nostalgia Critic stating this factoid without proof or source (I guess he got it from the trivia section of IMDB? Which is also not-sourced). There is no proof anywhere from any official source that this is true? I think it'll be fitting to remove this piece of trivia unless citable proof can be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.90.247 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a Historically Inaccurately.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit set in 1947 and 1947 is part of the Post-WWII era, but Who Framed Roger Rabbit have many Art Deco style references in the movie, also have many 1930s fashion references. Art Deco an Interwar period era of the History of the arts, design and architecture ir was active between 1910 until 1935. - 201.52.229.251 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit&oldid=883274522"