Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elephants Dream: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:12, 28 August 2018

Elephants Dream (2006)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2018 at 11:53:06 (UTC)

Original – Elephants Dream (code-named Orange and originally titled Machina) is a 2006 English-language and Dutch-produced 3D CGI animated science fiction 9-minute short film that was produced almost completely using the free software 3D suite Blender (except for the modular sound studio Reaktor and the cluster that rendered the final production which ran Mac OS X). It premiered on 24 March 2006 after about 8 months of work.

Reason: High quality encode of entire short film under a compatible license. I can think of no better way than to demonstrate the film than to actually show the entirety of it to the viewer.
Articles in which this image appears: Elephants Dream
FP category for this image: Entertainment
Creator: Orange Open Movie Team

Support as nominator – FakeShemp (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retract nomination FakeShemp (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and leaning towards oppose - This is already 12 years old, with very stiff (if not outright amateurish) character animation. Is it really worthy of being featured? --Janke | Talk 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering how it could possibly be made any better without making an entirely different film. Yes, it was made 12 years ago. Yes, the animation isn't good, but that's what the movie is. If we go this route I also don't think Roundhay Garden Scene should ever be featured because it's basically crap in all regards. And nether should The Mystery of the Leaping Fish and Night of the Living Dead because the acting is stiff and the scripts dumb. Should we really judge movies on their content rather than their files' quality. To me, that's like saying The Ugly Duchess is not feature worthy because of it's ugly motif, nor Discovery of the Land because it's not realistic enough. FakeShemp (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per Janke. Technically not up to FP or Main Page standards. Scant EV. Sca (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ;Creator:[https://orange.blender.org/theteam/ Orange Open Movie Team]
-* '''Support as nominator''' – [[User:FakeShemp|FakeShemp]] ([[User talk:FakeShemp|talk]]) 11:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
+* <s>'''Support as nominator''' – [[User:FakeShemp|FakeShemp]] ([[User talk:FakeShemp|talk]]) 11:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)</s> <br>'''Retract nomination''' [[User:FakeShemp|FakeShemp]] ([[User talk:FakeShemp|talk]]) 07:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * '''Comment, and leaning towards oppose''' - This is already 12 years old, with very stiff (if not outright amateurish) [[character animation]]. Is it really worthy of being featured? --[[User:Janke|Janke]] | [[User talk:Janke|Talk]] 12:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 ** I'm wondering how it could possibly be made any better without making an entirely different film. Yes, it was made 12 years ago. Yes, the animation isn't good, but that's what the movie is. If we go this route I also don't think [[Roundhay Garden Scene]] should ever be featured because it's basically crap in all regards. And nether should [[The Mystery of the Leaping Fish]] and [[Night of the Living Dead]] because the acting is stiff and the scripts dumb. Should we really judge movies on their content rather than their files' quality. To me, that's like saying [[The Ugly Duchess]] is not feature worthy because of it's ugly motif, nor [[c:File:Discovery of the Land1.jpg|Discovery of the Land]] because it's not realistic enough. [[User:FakeShemp|FakeShemp]] ([[User talk:FakeShemp|talk]]) 20:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)