Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler

Recobbled cut and plot summaries

The plot summaries desperaely need some cleanup. It'd likely be best to highlight the differences between the versions instead of providing plot dumps for all 3. Also, the resoration efforts section should mention the recent fan-driven "recobbled cut" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.123.26 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

"This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.". This means that the article reads as if a fan wrote it; it lacks a professional tone (and not a good two weeks after I rewrote the article). Also, references are going to be needed for a lot of this information, and we should never link to copyrighted videos on YouTube or refer readers to pirating websites. --FuriousFreddy 06:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've looked at it and you are right, there were some things that sounded a bit like fan talk. But I do not think that it was nearly bad enough to warrant an "innapropriate tone" template, as there were only 2 or 3 cases in the whole article - it would have been a very simple matter to just correct them. Also I don't agree with your decision to completely remove any references to the 2006 restoration, since this was a fairly significant point in the film's history which received support from many of the people who worked on the original film (despite it being illegal). In addition, some sentences that may have seemed like fanboy talk to you (such as "Extensive and complicated reconstruction was required for many scenes, and Gilchrist even created some brand-new animation for certain short scenes in the film in order to replicate what was originally intended.") were actually just the truth. It's all in that long forum thread. Basically, although I will admit that the article is on the whole better and more coherent now, I think that you deleted too much information. Info in an innapropriate tone is better than no info at all. Anyway, I'll go & clean it up a bit... Esn 03:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Info in an inappropriate tone is just as bad as (if not worse than) no info at all. An encyclopedia article on a motion picture shouldn't be covering specific instances of a copyrighted film's bootlegging; you have to be vague with such things. It doesn't matter what the people who made the film say; it matter what the people who own the film say. --FuriousFreddy 20:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

Would Wikipedia guidelines forbid linking to this forum thread? Esn 05:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*

Is this devolving into an edit war? It's looking like it... I tried to do a compromise in the restoration section between FuriousFreddy's version and the one that was there previously, but since it was changed back I'm guessing that FuriousFreddy's going to change it back to what he wrote soon...

I should like to add that both sides here have made some very useful edits to the article, but I really wish there was some kind of compromise between you two about what to do with the restoration section... first of all, is it against Wikipedia policy to provide links to copyrighted videos on Youtube? And would it be against Wiki policy to provide a link to the above thread (see previous topic)? Both of these are usefull links, but if it is not allowed to link to them then they shouldn't be in the article... I'd just like to see where such a policy is stated. Esn 18:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It is indeed against Wikipedia policy to link to bootlegged copies of copyrighted films. From Wikipedia:External links: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations). Thief and the Cobbler is apparently owned by Mirimax in the United States, and therefore links to a YouTube bootleg (and a forum mentioning/advertising how said YouTube bootleg was made) are unnacceptable.
2. I did non-substantial cleanup on the restoration section, removing specific mentions of individuals who have made "fan restorations" of the film (great way to get the MPAA on somebody's trail), links to YouTube, and speculation/supposition about how a resotratio ncould be made (which I reworded into one sentence which states fact instead of supposition/conjecture). Please remember to always be encyclopedic in your writing. --FuriousFreddy 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

plot summary

where is it? 60.50.195.195 23:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good point. Because there are several different versions of this film out there, there are about 3 fairly different plots (the Miramax version of the film was changed a LOT from what was originally intended). Any attempt to explain all of this would be a little tortuous... still I suppose it must be attempted. I've only seen the recent "restored" version myself... I think I could summarize that. I'll get to it in a little while. :P Esn 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot - HELP NEEDED!

Ok, this is proving harder than I thought it would be. I divided the plot section into three sub-sections, on the basis that there are three versions of the film which are rather different from each other. I am putting them in the order that they were created in - since Williams' version was nearly finished, and can now be generally seen thanks to Garret's restoration, that should go first (most people who visit this page are probably looking for that version, actually). Since there is some overlap between various versions of the film (especially the latter two), it might be better to say what was added, or taken away. However, I'm not really sure because I've only seen the Garret/Williams version of the film, not the other ones.

The plot summary for the Williams section is currently unfinished... I will finish it a bit later or someone else can start doing it if they feel up to it.

If we (or I) get the plot summary done, this article can easily move up to "B-class" status or possibly higher (though higher than B would require nomination and everything, and probably more references). Esn 08:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Character names

Could someone kindly clarify which characters were named Goblet, Tickle, Gofer, Slap, Dwarf, Hoof, Hook, Goolie? KnowledgeLord 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much repeating in plot sections

I don't know, but it seems to me like there is an awfull lot of repetition between the two plot versions that are currently up. Perhaps it would be advisable to somehow highlight what is different in each version rather than repeating what is the same? The only thing I've found so far is the witch's riddle, which isn't present in the Recobbled Cut. I think that, rather than the overall plot, most of the changes had to do with editing, characterization and the deletion of a lot of "pure animation" scenes from the original Williams version (scenes which wouldn't really be part of a plot summary anyway). And the songs, of course. Maybe there should be one section for the general plot, and three more sections for listing the differences that are unique to the versions. Missing scenes, song numbers, etc.

The general plot for all three versions is more-or-less the same (it does differ somewhat, but not majorly), but the film isn't really about the plot - it's the other details which really matter. Esn 08:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to the person who was removing the trivia section

You have the right idea, but you should never delete usefull information from an article. The WikiProjectFilms style guidelines say that trivia sections should be integrated with the article as the article matures, NOT deleted. Instead of deleting them, you could have tried to integrate them yourself or you could have left a message on this talk page asking the other editors to do it. Anyway, I've started moving a few of the trivia points into the main body of the article - I'm sure that others will be able to continue the process. Anything that CAN be integrated into some other section must go there, and the various pieces of info that can't but are still important can stay in the trivia section.

If you like, I could rename "trivia" to "miscellanea". An editor was going around doing that a few months ago. Esn 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Announcer of Zigzag's enterance

Well, the announcer of Zigzag's enterance wasn't heard in the original and Majestic Films versions, but in the Miramax version, so who voiced the announcer of Zigzag's enterance? If you live in Hollywood and know who voiced the announcer of Zigzag's enterance, tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.132.104 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeating sections...again

As an outside observer, who doesn't know anything about the different versions of this story, it was nearly impossible for me to distinguish the differences between the decrptions in the text. They looked like 3 complete cut-and-paste jobs, and frankliy I started to write this message because I thought it was exactly that. This is not shakespeare... wouldn't it be sufficient to tell the "main" story in one block, and then use the other blocks to denote the differences only> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.65.33.71 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Split plot

The three separate plot sections make this article rather large. I suggest they be moved to The Thief and the Cobbler plot differences, or something similar. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per Manual of Style (writing about fiction), summaries should be between 300 and 500 words. The plot sections should only describe major plot elements. I would suggest trimming the section down to a summary of Williams' original story, and listing the changes in the Majestic and Miramax versions in the production details. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC))

One Eye's death

I do not remember seeing him dying in Miramax film, unless that was him we see on fire when Tack says "And so King One Eye and his army were defeated" or something. Am I right in assuming that in the Miramax version he is killed during some time when the machine collapses? It has been a while since I saw it, though, but can someone atleast add something on the subject to the changes made in the film? 24.65.118.20 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I quickly checked that version *cough*on YouTube*cough*, and the scene where he would have been killed has been cut. You can hear him saying "My machine!!!" when the War Machine is collapsing for good, which implies that he is left alive.LaukkuTheGreit (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard him say that, and that's what confused me, the next time it shows the machine burning, Tack says "And so King One-Eye and his army have been defeated for all eternity." So, what would've happened there? I hear the scene in the other version where he would've been killed was before the machine collapsed. Well... where exactly was he during the whole scene? Was he on top of the machine somewhere like the other One Eyes, cause he appeared to be talking through a long megaphone. If this was the case, he must've been untouched by the fire long enough to say "My machine!!!" I hate scenarios where it is unknown and left to speculation as to whether the main/major villain is killed off or not... like Michael Myers in Halloween 6. 24.65.118.20 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the plot summary of the original version, the Mighty One-eye is killed by his slave women (who have mostly been cut from the Miramax version, but you can still see One-eye sitting on them). Regarding One-eyes death, I remember now that the way they kill him is different in the original and The Princess and the Cobbler.LaukkuTheGreit (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that version once, and I seem to remember a badly-animated scene where they throw him down and mob him. Now that you mention it, I'm sure I did see them during the scene where he told ZigZag to ride at the front. But the scene where the slave women kill him was before the machine collapsed for good, and the line "My machine!" is added into the Miramax version, so at least at that moment he is still alive. So either the scene took place later, or he was on the machine at the time, or something else unknown. The reason I think he might've still been killed one way or another is Tack's use of the term "for all eternity" when saying One-Eye and his army were defeated. Do you have any interpretations on the Miramax version?24.65.118.20 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)