Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular
- ... that Mainframe Entertainment's 2003 Scary Godmother adaptation was initially planned to be a launch for an episodic television show based on Jill Thompson's series of books that ultimately never happened? Source: "This property has been out for a while and it's bounced around in terms of whether or not we wanted to do one-hour specials or if we wanted to go as a series. People didn't understand it from a series point of view and they were looking at it as a special or direct-to-video type of thing. And we didn't really want to do that because it's better in the long term for us to invest this much money and build something for it to be a series." [1]
- ALT1:... that the animated Halloween ratings hit Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular was based on a stage production that ran at a community theater in Chicago? Source: "'A community theater group in Chicago put on a play, adapted from [Jill] Thompson's first [Scary Godmother] book, which was the basis of our project,' explains [director Zeke] Norton." [2] "It's actually based on the books and the stage play Jill Thompson and Runamuck Productions put together." [3]
- ALT2:... that Mainframe Entertainment's stylized look for their 2003 computer-animated Scary Godmother special, which mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D, was to avoid comparisons to theatrical CGI films by investors? Source: "'When we go out and pitch product for TV, the standard they hold us to is theatrical features. And worse than that, there's a potential stigma that affects the entire computer animation business: If one company doesn’t do something well, all the companies are tarred with the same brush.' DiDio sees artist-driven stylization as one way to avoid being compared to big-budget theatricals. 'We want to develop multiple looks for Mainframe; we don’t want to have a house style,’ he says. ‘Scary Godmother, Dots Bots and Gate Crasher: All three of them are trying to push the boundaries of what people perceive computer animation to be in different ways.'" [4]
Created by HumanxAnthro (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC).
The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The hooks are directly cited. A QPQ is not needed. I am approving ALT0 or ALT2 as the most interesting. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT2, but I do not see this hook fact with an inline cite in the article: which mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D
. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah The fact is in an image caption. I don't remember if that is acceptable for DYK. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
-
-
- @SL93: Um, now the only problem is ALT2 is 234 characters long. All the hooks are rather wordy. Could you suggest an alt? 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah I think the excess can just be removed. ... that Scary Godmother: Halloween Spooktakular mixes 3D characters with 3D backgrounds black-edged to look 2D to avoid comparisons with theatrical CGI films by investors? SL93 (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
-
