Talk:Hoodwinked!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Twitchy

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

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

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

Title?

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

Criticism of Quality of Animation

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

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

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

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

Synopsis

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

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

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

$15 or $20 mill?

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

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

Clarify please

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

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

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

how old is red?

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

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

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

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

Plot

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

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

put spoiler warnings

ya

Goof removal

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

Move to Hoodwinked!

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

Title

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

Alternative title / dead reference link to IMDB

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

Question

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

Why are there changes?

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

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

The Wolf and Twitchy

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

Not 'The next day'

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

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

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

The Usual Suspects

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

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

Todd Edwards

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

Hayden Panetierre info

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

Release Date

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

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

How about either of these?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing wrong here

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

Archive 1