Jump to content

Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Did Roger Rabbit revitalize animation?

Y'know at the time, animation, classical animation like this had really died out. This movie was really the first movie that really brought it back. And then the Disney corporation went on to do, uh, movies like The Lion King, stuff like that, were they utilized the talent that had been assembled for this picture. - Jeffrey Smart, screenwriter of Roger Rabbit.

Does anyone have more on this?MartinSFSA (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of talk at the time, and you could probably get a lot of quotes from Richard Williams, but most people assumed that the revitalization was more in context of live action/animation films especially over at Warner Brothers. The succession is hard to prove directly at Disney, since the producers wouldn't be able to see Roger Rabbit's success until its release and by then production on the "Animation Renaissance" had already gone into effect with films like "The Little Mermaid" the following year beginning its production four years earlier in 1985. By dates, the revitalization is hard to prove. I personally do think it had a large part in a general studio zeitgeist and pushing forwards of productions that had been planned years before. Animation was no longer a product for children anymore, but families and beyond that, grown-ups. One of the few great Katzenberg legacies at Disney. I would love to quote you on this one Jeffrey--if you are the real screenwriter Jeffrey PRICE--but since this is in a wikipedia discussion and not a credible source, it only counts as opinion. And for that matter, what animation staff was hired was not working at Disney in California but at Elstree Studios in England. There may have been some new staff hired to make the Roger Rabbit shorts, but Disney had never ceased making shorts for this period. --Artimaean (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Short cartoon that preceded the main movie in cinemas

I recall seeing a very, very, very funny short cartoon that preceded the main movie when I saw WFRR in the cinema, but this doesn't seem to be on the DVD I bought. This hilarious extra isn't referenced in the article. Does anyone know more about this? I suppose I could just be confusing the scene at the start of the movie as a seperate cartoon, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't that. I remember the rest of the audience, my friend and me laughing histerically at this and would love to know more about it and if it's possible to get hold of it still. Sorry if this isn't the best place or way to ask this! Zctyp18 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you remember what was going on in the cartoon? any details? and which characters were in the precartoon? if any. Dureo (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, no! It was so long ago! I just remember it being very fast-paced and funny; possibly with different characters from the main film. Zctyp18 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Anachronistic toons

The listing of cartoon characters appearing in the film tags some as being anachronisms, because they had not yet been created in 1947. An explanation is given that the intention was entertainment rather than animation history. I have also seen a quote--sadly, I forget who from--ragarding the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, who appear in the film but whose first short wasn't released until 1948. The point was that, in the Roger Rabbit universe, these characters are real "people", and that they existed before the release of their first films, just as human stars do. So--in the context of this film--the appearance of these characters is not anachronistic...it's just that the toons in question haven't yet had their Big Break. PurpleChez (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlinkage

Particularly in the plot section there were a lot of links of questionable value. Most common were links to characters that pointed to a redirect page which pointed to the 'List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters' page. The choice seemed to be either have it point directly or just remove the link. I did the latter, since the former would have really cluttered up the underlying code with long links (for example: Roger Rabbit). I did add links to the character page both as a main article for the 'Main cartoon characters' paragraph and to 'See Also'. I also removed some links that went no where or were just odd. Like just what are the 5ive weasels? Anyway, I hope this is all satisfactory. PerlKnitter (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations for use

  • Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman (2003-04-03). "Who Screwed Roger Rabbit?". Animation World Magazine.
  • "Don't expect a Rabbit sequel". USA Today. 2003-03-26.
  • Shawn Adler (2007-09-11). "Roger Rabbit Sequel Still In The Offing? Stay Tooned, Says Producer". MTV Movies Blog.
  • Paul Sweeting (2004-02-05). "Disney, Roger Rabbit author in spat". Video Business.
  • Ken P (2003-04-01). "An Interview with Don Hahn". IGN.
  • Ken P (2003-03-31). "An Interview with Andreas Deja". IGN.
  • Michael Fleming (1997-06-23). "Rabbit redux revving up". Variety.
  • Michael Fleming (1994-03-14). "Jessica Rabbit revealed". Variety.
  • Adam Sandler (1994-03-16). "Rabbit frames feed flap". Variety.
  • Michael Fleming (1994-03-17). "Kopelson does major Defense spending". Variety.
  • Adam Sandler (1997-06-09). "Silver Screen investors file suit against Disney". Variety.
  • "Kerry Butler's 'Faith, Trust and Pixie Dust' Set For May Release". Broadway World. 2008-02-28.
  • Rich Drees. "Who Delayed Roger Rabbit". Film Buff Online.
  • Jesse Hiestand (2005-03-22). "Roger Rabbit Animated In Court". AllBusiness.com.
  • "Who Stripped Jessica Rabbit". Snopes.com.

Wildroot (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Plot, "In 1947" add a comma after 1947.
    Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Release section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since their websites and per here. Same section, you have the wrong bracket ---> "Roger Rabbit was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture (Musical or Comedy}, while Hoskins was nominated for his performance".
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Temporous - not a word?

The word "temporous" used to describe R.K. Maroon does not seem to be a word in the english (or any other) language - 'tempore' in latin was the closest result Google provided. Having not seen the movie, not sure what this should be... tempestuous, maybe Macleod199 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Short tempered". It seemed the best fit. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Wildroot (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

R. K. Maroon was not short–tempered. Many scenes show him smiling. His tone of voice was always moderate.Lestrade (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Wildroot disagrees. He claims that Maroon "is pretty pissed off throughout the entire movie." I don't think so. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a positive declaration (an assertion that something is the case). I would ask for specific examples of Maroon's short temper, but I know that they would not be forthcoming.Lestrade (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Common misconception

Because of her name, it is often assumed that Jessica Rabbit is a rabbit 'toon. However, she is a humanoid 'toon. Her name is Rabbit because she is married to Roger Rabbit.Lestrade (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

We know. Wildroot (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alledged racism

Any chance of a mention of the supposed racism in one scene? Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...and which scene is that?Lestrade (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

It's that scene at the Ink and Paint Club where everyone thought that Donald Duck called Daffy Duck the n-word. You can read it here, where they proved it wrong so there's no point mentioning it. Wildroot (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I knew it wasn't actually true (hence the use of the word "alledged") but just because it isn't true does not mean it is not worth mentioning. The Jessica Rabbit controversy is mentioned here and that may have not been deliberate. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. There are entire articles devoted to popular myths and urban legends after all.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Another contrivorsy?

If you look at the case, you see Roger Rabbit's head. Remove the ears. Children's show or porn? You decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.16.182 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's neither. Wikipedia is not a place to offer wild conspiracy theories. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you should realy visit a psychiatrist. Those weird delusional obsessions that hides in your head may indicate that you have a genuine one-of-a-kind paranoya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The great American streetcar scandal

Is there room for a reference to this somewhere? It seems like the obvious inspiration for Doom's plan. —Codrdan (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that the streetcars died for reasons having little or nothing to do with a conspiracy, notwithstanding National City Lines. Remarkably, this movie was the reason for a session at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board where the conspiracy was thoroughly debunked by professional historians who presented peer-reviewed research on this subject. Cpzilliacus (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

IMDB has some (minimal) information. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
...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)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    • 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)
    • 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)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_Framed_Roger_Rabbit/Archive_2&oldid=1086753507"