Talk:Fritz the Cat (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recording questions

So the recording is finished but I had some questions to clarify and perhaps correct in how I read what's written. Since the article relies so heavily on quotes from Bakshi and Crumb and whatnot, I decided not to make an indication when I'm speaking a quote. For instance, in the sentence, "In an interview, Bakshi stated that 'You should have seen their faces in the screening room when I first screened a bit of Fritz...'" I didn't say, "Bakshi stated that, quote, blah, blah." I decided against this as I felt it would be a little cumbersome considering the number of on-and-off quotations that this article uses. So basically I'm just curious if anybody has any opinion concerning this or if it is totally unimportant.

Another question, quickly, was whether anybody know if there was a preferred way to pronounce Bakshi's name. I sort of switched between a Bakshi as in octopus and Bakshi as in attack. I was also interested in where the stress lies in the word "Rapidograph pen". I said it Rapidograph, but I could naturally be mistaken since I've never heard of this pen.

The recording is ready and reasonably clean if the questions I have above are nonsense. Yarnbarndarn (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Passed

This article has passed the GA noms. The following is a bot-generated suggestions for improvement to FA-class.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 14:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To-do

I'd agree with the above. The lead needs 3 paras only. Prose is good, maybe a bit too much 'he said, she said' in it. Do we really need all the back and forth comments between Crumb and Bakshi? going well though. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Please see hidden comments in the text for questions/issues. Feel free to contact my talk page if you have questions. Galena11 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Ratings are indiscriminate information. No one has any idea what those letters mean in those other countries except for the people that live in that country. Not only is that only a list that doesn't say anything beyond a letter, but there is no prose information describing what the countries didn't like about the film. That isn't the "R is for extreme violence" description, it's the "China did not like blah blah blah..., because...". You do that for the United States, as it has a reason to be noted. But the sentence "it was generally lower in other countries" doesn't need a list to show that, the sentence isn't that complext to understand. What it could use it an explaination of why it was lower. Bignole 11:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that sentence, since about half of the time, when an American film receives a rating in a foreign country that looks different to Americans, it's actually just as high as the original American rating. I think the problem you have has more to do with the movie certificates infobox. You can address your concerns with that template on its own talk page. This isn't the place. (And, FYI: The links in the Infobox do explain what the ratings mean.) (Ibaranoff24 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

No, the ratings explain the measurment techniques. They don't address what this film was. An "R" rating for one film does not translate to an "R" rating for another film. Films get "R"s, "PG-13"s, etc for different reasons, that are not simply duplications of the guidelines for each ratings. They are based on specific scenes, and it may just be one scene that pushes it over, while the rest of the film actually sat comfortably in a lower rating. That list, nor it's links, explains that. Bignole 11:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How are we sure that Blue is addicted to heroin? I personally think it's tweek. You can tell by his face and actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.1.225 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nudity

Hey. I've read the aricle. Not bad, but I can't seem to find any reference to nudity. Surely that aspect of the film is relevant. Especially to the rating, I'd argue. I mean, that section just starts out "the film received an X". That's not horrible, but there's really no explanation for it offered. Just mentioning that the film has "sex(uality) and violence" doesn't really cover it. The film's animated nudity had to have been a key factor. Now, I'm not recommending the article say something like "There's nudity, nudity, nudity!" I'm not even recommending a picture. It just seems like an odd thing to just gloss over, 172.190.224.67 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• One would assume that a film rated "X" by the MPAA and containing sexuality would feature nudity. It is not an issue that requires dwelling on. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Neutering Fritz

Maybe point out the "subtle" alteration of the poster image for the cover of the DVD. That's better, now no one will be offended. Asat (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:OR. Unless the DVD artwork has received academic discussion, it's not worth noting. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2009 (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) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

This article has had a maintenance tag in the "Critical reception" section since November 2014. This section is probably inadequate based on the coverage in secondary sources of this film. @Paleface Jack: You're the one who added the "expansion" tag—do you know of specific omissions, or have specific reasons to believe the section is insufficient? I also note that there is no discussion of Themes, which is a large omission for a Featured film article. This article should be expanded accordingly. I think the Plot section also needs examination for being overly long. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)