Talk:BoJack Horseman

Awards

The first award happened in 2015 (not 2016). Can someone edit please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.55.105 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The artist should be credited

I'm not sure how or where to add it in, but the artist Lisa Hanawalt should be mentioned/linked in the article somewhere, since she is part of the reason for the show's distinct look. It lists here on her page that she's the production designer: http://lisahanawalt.com/about Xandylion (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception "clean up"?

I could have sworn there was a section about the mixed critical reception to this series, and now it's seemingly gone, and only the positive bits remain. Anyone know why?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.217.120 (talk • contribs)

Resolved

 – I have restored one mixed review and the Metacritic score.--Carniolus (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode release dates

Hopefully some people are watching this page, but i'm a little confused by the release dates listed for the episodes. Some are listed as having coming out as late as in November, but this show utilizes Netflix's delivery model, meaning all episodes (except the recently released Christmas special) came out on the same day in August. Weedwacker (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Specials

There have been at least 2 specials, not just the Christmas special.

Horsin Around - Full episode released on Netflix.

There was also several shorts of BoJack auditioning for different Netflix and tv series.

These shorts and the Horsin Around episode should be listed under Specials, or at the very least included somewhere on this page.

Editing Major Character Descriptions

Changed Made: I edited "Bojack Horseman" and "Princess Carolyn" under the "Main Characters" section to be more general and neutral. I used the existing description and parts of the external Bojack Horseman Wikia as a template. Then I ended with a final general sentence about their current state in the series. I think this format would allow for simpler edits in the future.

Buttsmahogany (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Should this be an LGBT-related page in categories?

As Todd's character is asexual, should this page be connected to American LGBT-related television programs in categories, as it is a form of queerness and is usually included as a part of the LGBT community?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BoJack Horseman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831183910/http://www.popzara.com/bojack-horseman-netflix/ to http://www.popzara.com/bojack-horseman-netflix/

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) 09:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Characters?

there is a bunch of famous people voicing them. Shouldn't this info be here?

Series Development

This article from Business Insider might be helpful for providing some background into the development of the series. Knope7 (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

'Prose' Update on influences for the series Clean Up?

I edited the section of the Bojack Horseman page on the show's inspirations and elaborated on their influence by using prose from an interview with the show creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg with Rolling Stone. User:Internet Informant (User talk:Internet Informant) 21:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Broadcast air dates

Would it be worth adding the dates when episodes air on Comedy Central?AmbivalentLife (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Website

Does anybody know if http://bojackhorseman.com/ is official?

Cause if yes, I think it's worth mentioning. I mean, just look at it. --Gurulupin (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gurulupin That link now redirects to a page on Netflix dot com. Dgndenver (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Universal" acclaim

This article contains multiple instances of the series/seasons of the series being referred to as having received "universal acclaim". The term "universal" means that something is applicable to all cases. In terms of the word's wider use on Wikipedia, I don't think that any piece of media should be referred to as "universally" acclaimed, since there's almost definitely going to be someone somewhere who doesn't like a television series, movie, etc.

As such, I attempted to alter the wording in this article to reflect this, but my edits were reverted by Mazewaxie. His stated reasoning is that "Season 2 to 6 received universal acclaim per Metacritic. It's not wrong saying that." It's certainly not wrong to say that, according to Metacritic's standards, they received universal acclaim. On Metacritic, any films with a score of between 81 to 100 are marked as having received "universal acclaim". However, to simply state that the seasons received "universal acclaim" in sentences that don't mention Metacritic not only gives undue weight to Metacritic's verdict, but it also implies that every critic who reviewed the seasons praised them, when this is not the case. Ken Tucker of Yahoo! TV, whose review of the show's third season is factored into its Metacritic score, gave the season a mixed review. Seth Simons of Paste, whose review of the fourth season is factored into its Rotten Tomatoes score, gave it a negative review. Gabriel Bergmoser of Den of Geek, whose review of the fifth season is factored into its RT score, gave it a negative review. Dan Schindel of Hyperallergic and Liz Shannon Miller of Paste, whose individual reviews of the sixth season both factor into its RT score, gave it negative reviews (here's the former and here's the latter).

Admittedly, in my initial edits, I merely looked at the aggregate scores for the seasons, rather than investigating the individual mixed/negative reviews. In any case, a piece of media should not be described as "universally acclaimed" if professional mixed/negative reviews of it exist. I will attempt to alter the wording in the article again to better reflect my above findings. The show's second season has only positive reviews on both Metacritic and RT, so I will leave its "universal acclaim" description intact. I still disagree with that phrasing, because I can guarantee that somebody out there didn't care for that season of the show, but I feel that I'm upsetting the applecart enough as it is. —Matthew - (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: I can understand your point, but using that logic the word "universally" should even exist then. There will always be someone that doesn't like something. But if 93% of critics (Rotten Tomatoes) liked BoJack gaving it really positive reviews, it is okay to use the term "universal" to describe its reception as far as I am concerned. I'm okay with the edits you made anyway, even if I don't agree. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie: When it comes to opinions/critical reception, I think perhaps the word "universally" shouldn't be used. Of course, we could get into a philosophical discussion about whether there are any universal truths at all, but I'd rather not do that right now. Basically, I think that more neutral terms, such as "generally", "widespread", "almost universal", or "near-universal", should be used in cases like this. —Matthew - (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"widely regarded as one of the greatest television series of all time"

This is WP:SYNTH, and as such violates WP:OR, since neither of the referenced critics state this. "Regarded by some critics as one of the greatest television series of all time" would be accurate. Unless, of course, you can come up with a WP:RS that states that. Same goes with "the subsequent seasons received universal acclaim." Unless you can find a source that specifically says that, merely referring to some of the acclaim is not adequate. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Once again I have changed the "greatest TV show of all time" claim. Unless you can produce a source that explicitly states the claim word-for-word, putting it here is WP:SYNTH. I'm not gonna edit war about this; it's RS 101. Next time we'll just go to WP:RSN. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

pictures of characters, scenes etc

hasn't it occurred to anyone how bizarre it is that the titular character, Bojack Horseman, is not visually featured in an article about the show starring said character?

sincerely, leah

ps: do you get it? Libreleah (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)