I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through many improvements since its first nomination, and I believe it meets all of the qualifications. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: All that seems to have happened since the last FAC are minor copyedits in the lead and some low-level cleanups. Essentially the article is the same as that which was archived on 13 January. What has been done to resolve the issues outstanding at that time? Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The issues that had been brought up in the last FAC had all been resolved. Had the FAC been properly extended, it would have already been listed as a FA. The very last comments even state that "This is an outstanding article on an important figure and easily worthy of FA status. The only improvement I could find to make was to add a single wiki-link." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
My reading of the previous FAC is that some image issues were not resolved to the satisfaction of the image reviewer. I am not going to argue, but will merely point out that if you want the article to succeed this time, you should find out what is still needed on the images front. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
All of the fair use images have adequate rationales, and the permission for the main image of Bakshi has been properly sorted out. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
There needs to be an independent judgement that all image issues have been resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- and also, there are some dabs that need fixing.
This can be easily fixed. It's not a major issue that would prevent the FAC from succeeding. I'll take a look at the links and find the ones that you refer to. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
Okay, I think I caught all of the links that needed fixing. If I missed any, let me know. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
Oppose on referencing. I've checked through the references in the first para ('Early life and television work') and several don't ref what they say they do, and some facts are not referenced. On the numbering current as I write this, the first para is actually taken almost entirely from reference 2 (Bakshi's own online biog), with some content from refs 5 and 6. Refs 1 and 3 don't seem to reference anything from this first para, although they are cited there. I may have missed it, but I can't see anything that refs the following facts: that Bakshi is of Krymchak descent, that as a boy he loved comic books and art and was a boxer, how he pitched Mighty Heroes. Sorry. 4u1e (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment — The part about Bakshi being of Krymchak descent was added by an anonymous editor without sourcing. I removed it entirely, and switched the citations to reflect what is actually sourced. That link you mention is from Bakshi's website, but it is not a blog. It is from the biographical section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
Being that this editor has yet to respond, I think it's safe to say that his comments can be written off as being outdated and inaccurate. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
Wait a little. You've given him 8 hours to get back to you? You can't seriously expect an answer so soon. Apterygial 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the FA director and/or deputy to judge whether or not a delay of about 36 hours in responding invalidates my comments. If you look at my edit history, you'll note that I've not been on Wikipedia since Ibaranoff's initial response to my oppose.
I agree that your recent edits have fixed the problems identified in the 'Early life and television work' paragraph. I suppose what I should have said explicitly above is that finding problems of that magnitude in the only para I looked at means I don't trust the referencing in the rest of the article. Can you confirm that you have checked through the referencing in the rest of the article for similar problems? If so, I'll check another para at random and (hopefully!) strike my oppose. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
In the interests of managing expectations, I'm unlikely to get much editing/reviewing time over this weekend. Hopefully I'll be able to check in this evening and possibly tomorrow morning. :) 4u1e (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have checked all of the references. I even updated the book citations for specific chapters, separating each chapter into a different citation, which is something that I do not usually do, but have picked up from other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
I've rechecked the citations, per request. They adequately reflect the text. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
Ibaranoff and I probably have a slightly different view on whether or not the cites are fixed. After Ibaranoff's assurance above on 14th Feb that all refs had been reviewed, I found similar problems when I checked another random para. I've discussed these with Ibaranoff on his talk page and they are now fixed but the sampling approach isn't working, so I'll need to check them all in detail myself before striking my oppose. I'll report back here as soon as possible. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, done. Oppose is struck. A couple of minor points: Is ref 8 supporting anything in the first para of 'early feature films'? I can't see any material in that para drawn from this source. I think there's a misquote in 'Later work': 'Variety reviewer Todd Everett wrote "the hyperdrive visual sense for which Bakshi's animated features have been noted..."' The first part of this doesn't make sense. Could Ibaranoff check the original and perhaps re-write appropriately. 4u1e (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the Maltin book supports the statement that Fritz the Cat was the first animated film to be rated X by the MPAA, and the Variety quote is taken directly from the cited book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Sorry, I meant ref 9 ( "The Filming of Fritz the Cat: Bucking the Tide") As for the Variety quote: it makes no sense as written. What was it Everett said about 'the hyperdrive visual sense'? Should it say something like: "Variety reviewer Todd Everett wrote that the film has the "the hyperdrive visual sense for which Bakshi's animated features have been noted.'"? 4u1e (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. That should be Cohen's book cited, not Barrier. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Note: To other reviewers, I haven't checked citation formatting or any of that stuff, only whether the content of the article reflects what is in the sources quoted. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Support - Looks good to me. Good work! Landon1980 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't look ready to me. Some issues include: an overlong lead , peacock terminology in the presentation (e.g. "tried to bring a change in the industry as a pioneer"), and a subtle POV tilt towards idolizing the director. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You are not clear at all. Please explain how the article comes across as promoting Bakshi's POV or "idolizing" him. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
I shortened the lead. I hope that this adequately summarizes the article and Bakshi's long career. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
What change is being talked about here? ("As the American animation industry fell into decline during the 1960s and 1970s, Bakshi tried to bring a change in the industry as a pioneer of adult animation.") Was it one specific change or many?
He tried to change the perception of animation being an immature artform for children by producing socially conscious works directed at adult audiences. This might be difficult to describe in the lead. Do you have a suggestion? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
CommentSupport ("Bakshi began working in the fantasy film genre in 1977, with the release of the film Wizards, an allegorical commentary on the destructive powers of propaganda.") This sentence is wrong for many reasons. Upon the release of the film Wizards? After? I'm going to venture that the lede means to say that "Bakshi made his first entry into the fantasy film genre with the release of the film Wizards..." but I don't know anything about this topic.DFW tragedy (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
("Bakshi garnered several awards for his work...") Is it correct to use the verb "has" here... which would need a rewrite upon Bakshi's death of course. "Bakshi has garnered several awards for his work over the years, including...." might be better.
Thank you. I can see that the article is even better than it was a few days ago. LaraDFW tragedy (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for now by karanacs. I think the article has definitely improved since its last nomination, but is probably not quite there yet. I have some concerns about sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose.
References need work.
Newspaper names should be italicized.
There was only one instance in which a newspaper source was not italicized, and it has been fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Actually, there are a lot in the references section that are not properly formatted. New York Times is a newspaper; Animation World Magazine is a magazine that should be italicized; full names of newspapers should be italicized (not just Times), etc... Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
But with only three results if you tighten the search appropriately to "Jim Hill" animation, rather than Jim Hill animation. 4u1e (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Since the interview is only cited once, I removed the entire sentence. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
I don't think IMDB is considered a reliable source for awards?
IMDb is the best source I could find for the awards. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
The question is where does IMDB get this information? If it is user-submitted, then it is not a reliable source and should not be used. If they get it from some other source, then it is probably okay. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe IMDb gets its award data from the providers of said awards. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Google Video is likely not the producer of those videos, just the host. Who actually produced them?
I believe that the interviewer is the owner and uploader of the videos. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
There is a lot sourced to his personal website. Can none of this be found elsewhere?
I think you exaggerate things when you say "a lot". I've tried to change the citations in instances where non-website sources could be found, but in a few instances, some things could not be better sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
There is specifically five instances in which his website was cited. That is not "a lot", especially compared to the 21 instances in which Karl F. Cohen's book is cited, etc. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
To me 5 citations to what is usually considered an unreliable source (a self-published website), is a lot. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Bakshi's website was already determined to be a reliable source, and is only occasionally used. Five citations is not "a lot". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Why aren't you using more from Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi (The Force Behind Fritz the Cat, Mighty Mouse, Cool World, and The Lord of the Rings)? Is there no critical commentary that might be useful, or any biographical information that you could source to this book rather than his website?
I do not own that book. From what I understand, it is mainly an art book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Can you get it from the library? I'm concerned that this is the only book that is centered only on Bakshi, and it hasn't been personally evaluated. That implies that there could be comprehensiveness issues - we won't know if we don't look at the book. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I cannot. The article is already very thorough. I don't think that the book would back up anything that isn't already backed up by the books listed and Bakshi's website. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Any other reliable source would be better than Bakshi's website. I find it hard to judge that the article is comprehensive if the one book devoted to Bakshi has not been at least consulted. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is very comprehensive. I've replaced some of the citations sourced from Bakshi's website to books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
The article lists the names of his family members but doesn't make it clear who are parents or siblings/other relatives.
I don't agree with that. I think that it only mentions his wife, sons and daughter. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
see list of " Eliezer, Mina, and Eve," -- no clue who they are. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know when these names were added. They certainly didn't come from any of the sources in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
Watch to make sure sentence structure matches. For example As a child, Bakshi loved comic books, art in general, and during his teenage years he was also a boxer - you start out with a list of two things he loved, and then the AND brings up something totally different. That is not proper grammar.
Watch that clauses are placed appropriately. Example: The film's release was stalled by protests from the Congress of Racial Equality long before its release, who accused the film and Bakshi himself of being racist - parsing this sentence would mean that the release "accused the film and Bakshi himself of being racist", which isn't what is intended
No, that is what was intended. CORE accused the film of being racist, and said that Bakshi was racist. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
No, the sentence structure is wrong. The current structure, if parsed grammatically, is saying that the RELEASE accused the film of being racist. The sentence needs to be restructured. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
How about this? "The film's release was stalled by protests from the Congress of Racial Equality. CORE accused the film and Bakshi himself of being racist." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Much better. Make sure this type of grammatical error is not propagated throughout the article. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What happened in his life between 1997 and 2005? There is almost nothing in here.
He retired to paint. It is clearly stated in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Okay, I missed that sentence. Did he try to sell his paintings? Do we know what type of painting he did? Any clue why he returned to animation? Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
He tried to produce another film because he was encouraged by a newfound interest in his work, which had begun to gain interest thanks to wider availability through DVD reissues and Internet sales. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
Comment — Even though the prose issues have been addressed and it has been established that Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi is not only not a biography, but I cannot get ahold of a copy and that the article is already very well-rounded, Karanacs refuses to look at the article or strike his opposition. This makes absolutely no sense.
Oppose 1b I remember "The Lord of the Rings" being absolutely loathed and despised by fans; I recall major magazines saying so. The article does not bring this out. I'll look for info over the next few days. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
A quick note: The film was not "absolutely loathed and despised by fans", as it grossed $30.5 million from a $4 million budget. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
Here's one (sorry for the caps; copy/pasted): ONE RING TO LURE THEM ALL CHRISTMAS 2001: TOLKIEN GOES HOLLYWOOD. ALREADY FANS HOPE FOR THE BEST, BRACE FOR THE WORST. Ralph Bakshi's 1978 film combined animation with "rotoscoping," in which footage of live actors was copied onto animation paper; in the words of another Tolkien character, "the memory is very evil." newsweek Jan 29, 2001
That's absolutely no reason to oppose this FAC. The opinions of fans is not encyclopedic. The article clearly shows the critical reaction to that film. The fact that it doesn't reflect your POV doesn't mean that you should oppose the FAC for that reason. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
I have to agree. The article you quote, Ling, was written more than 20 years after the film's issue and has nothing to do with its initial reception. The oppose should be withdrawn; why not make it a comment with a polite suggestion to consider your point? FAC doesn't always have to be warfare. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Essentially because I really do think the article is 1b, but I haven't had a good chance to gather evidence to make my case yet. I agree that my case is currently weak; that's fine. If I cannot make my case, then my Oppose is of course not persuasive. If my Oppose is not persuasive, then I will eventually either withdraw it, or it will be ignored by the FAC director. My task now is either to find more evidence, or withdraw my Oppose. If I cannot find more evidence of 1b (incomplete coverage) or any other WIAFA issue, then of course I must withdraw my Oppose.
In addition, the FAC director decides if an article passes or fails, not me. The FAC director can Promote or Not Promote or "let it ride a little longer", depending on how strong the Opposing arguments are. [Here notice an important point: it appears to me that at present I am not the only Opposer.].. In a nutshell, my gut tells me it's 1b, so I Oppose, and now whenever I have free time (a scarce commodity) I must find more evidence to buttress my gut feelings. Is that clear enough? Your next statement will be, "But if you don't have evidence, you shouldn't Oppose." My reply will be that Opposing, in my view, is at least in part a matter of conscience. If I offer a weak Oppose and a promise that I will try to support it, but the FAC director Promotes anyhow, will I scream, will I leave nasty messages on everyone's Talk? Nope. I did what my conscience told me, but I failed to prove my assertion. My fault, but with a clear conscience. Is that clear, then? Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 04:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question. Have you noticed that the two people who opposed the article haven't checked the article in days to see if their questions were answered, if their concerns had been addressed? I believe that the previous opposing reviewers' comments have been addressed, but one of them is nowhere to be found and the other is an anonymous IP, and thus, is hard to track. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Comment pursuant to 1b: It took about 5 minutes on LexisNexis to dig up some choice criticism of Bakshi's LOTR:
"Cartoon Rings a Travesty", by Bruce Kirkland, The Toronto Sun, 12/12/01: "Don't confuse the newly released DVD version of The Lord Of The Rings with the movie trilogy set to launch in December. The DVD, out Sept. 11 from Warner Home Video, is the 1978 animated version by Ralph Bakshi -- and it's an unwatchable travesty."
"The 'Other' Lord of the Rings", by Barry Leighton, Western Daily Press, 9/23/01: "Celebrated animator Ralph Bakshi's ambitious crack at the swords and sorcery classic became an epic flop."
"Overcompressed TV Hobbit far from its roots", by Ray Conlogue, The Globe and Mail, 5/21/79: "As a Tolkien purist, however, that means I have to put this programtogether with Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings and conclude that the world of Middle Earth will never successfully be animated."; "Bakshi's Lord of the Rings is incomprehensible"; "The elves, dwarves and hobbits, carefully drawn to Tolkien's descriptions, were more interesting than Bakshi's cookie-cutter evocations ..."
These are just from the first page of results. --Laser brain(talk) 05:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't seem that these commentators are authorities on film and animation, as opposed to major film critics like Vincent Canby and Roger Ebert and animation historians like Jerry Beck, whose opinions are cited in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Furthermore, I've found no such results on that website, which contains articles relating to business issues, not reviews of films. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. LexisNexis Academic is a premier search engine for books, journals, and other reliable sources. The opinions of film critics in reliable sources is more than valid, especially if the overall tone of the criticism is that Bakshi's work stunk. --Laser brain(talk) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
But that is not the overall opinion of the film. Beck's book refers to reviews as being mixed, but generally favorable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Oppose, 1b (comprehensive) and 1d (neutral). Just a few minutes of digging on the topic of the animated LOTR reveals this section presents Bakshi in an all-to-favorable light, ignoring prevalent criticism of the film and his work on it. --Laser brain(talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That is inaccurate. I removed the more favorable review quotes and kept the mixed reviews from Canby and Ebert to avoid any further accusations of bias. The article never ignored any criticism of Bakshi's work. I don't know what you are talking about when you make statements like that. That is just plain wrong. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Yes it has ignored criticism; I cite examples above. --Laser brain(talk) 06:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect, as I stated above. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Well, I see that this has once again degenerated into your unfortunate pattern of behavior toward reviewers, particularly any who oppose your nominations. You can't tell me I'm wrong for stating an opinion. In my opinion, you're picking and choosing sources. The article is also poorly researched. I maintain my opposition. --Laser brain(talk) 07:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I am stating that you are incorrect because you've clearly formed an opinion before looking at the article. What exactly do you mean that the article is "poorly researched"? You took five seconds on an Internet search to determine that the article is biased, whereas several books have been appropriated to find the most factually accurate, neutral information. Mind the "good faith" rule, please. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I read the article, thanks. That I and others have so readily found sources for information you missed, the logical conclusion is that the article is poorly researched. --Laser brain(talk) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. There was an extensive amount of research put into the writing of this article. It's ridiculous for you to come in and barely look at an article that has gone through at least two years of work and say that it's poorly researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but how can you make such a claim when you've never even heard of the most prominent search tool for finding articles on a topic? Google is a crappy research tool. I am disengaging from this conversation now until you've made progress on fixing the issues brought by me, Ling.Nut, Karanacs, and Jappalang. If your reply is that we're all "incorrect", then I suggest you rethink your approach here. --Laser brain(talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is not sourced from Google. It is sourced from multiple books and newspapers, with Google sometimes acting as a stand-in library of sorts. I own multiple books cited in the article. I sourced the article from multiple books, articles, and interviews. I say that you are incorrect because you are incorrect in repeatedly stating that the article is poorly-researched when it clearly is not. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Comment — Ling.Nut, may I ask you not to post links to fansites when they are not relevant to the discussion? This article is not about what random people on the Internet have to say. If a link was not written by a noted historian or film critic, please do not post it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Ibaranoff, you are rmv'ing my links. This is truly bad form. If the FAC director thinks my info is irrelevant, she will disregard it. I am establishing the fact that the movie was loathed by fans. Please, please do not rmv my links again. I... am quite surprised. To all reading this page: the links are in the hist. I'm not gonna edit war. Please do give them a look.
It's already been established that fan reaction is irrelevant. And as I've stated on your talk page, from what I've read on the subject matter, the majority of Tolkien fans do not loathe or hate Bakshi's film. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
While I'm here, I found a bit of info that you may find useful:
Sito, Tom (2006).Drawing the Line: The Untold Story of the Animation Unions from Bosko to Bart Simpson. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813124077. Page 133 states that police were called in to quell the disturbance when Bakshi screened Coonskin at the Museum of Modern art. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Jerry Beck's view of the proceedings was that there was no disturbance during the screening, but there were racist catcalls during the question-and-answer session, and Bakshi's speech was cut short. I don't think there are enough sources to state that the police actually were called in. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Back to the Sito book, see page 50 about Bakshi advancing the careers of women and minorities. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Added to discussion of Bakshi's early career. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Please use blockquotes for quotes of four or more lines, see WP:MOSQUOTE. I fixed two but may have missed others. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
From what I can tell, you got all of the quotes that are four or more lines. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Lenburg, Jeff (2006).Who's who in Animated Cartoons: An International Guide to Film & Television's Award-winning and Legendary Animators Hal Leonard Corporation. On page 15 Bakshi compares Wizards to the creation of the sate of Israel. Mmmmm. I dunno if that should go in or not, but it's a candidate. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Added discussion of Wizards themes. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Same book, next page, Bakshi describes himself as "the biggest rip-off cartoonist in the history of animation" Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, he states that he was the most ripped off cartoonist in the history of animation, meaning that he had been financially taken advantage of and his ideas stolen by others. I believe that quote is on the Wikiquotes page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
sandy doesn't like it when I post too many quotes here; moving to Talk. Ling.Nut(talk—WP:3IAR) 08:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments on the LotR section — I have to agree with the above that it is lacking. Granted these (Michael D. C. Droutare's J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, and John Clute and John Grant's The Encyclopedia of Fantasy p. 1027 mentions rumbling, incoherent) tertiary sources, but they show the existence of a negative reception towards the show, which can be checked in the sources cited by them. Howard Beckerman calls it a "tedious retelling" in Animation: The Whole Story, and Ernest Mathijs reported in The Lord of the Rings: Popular Culture in Global Context that the animation's $30 million takings were relatively paltry (based on a Lowson source) [p. 25]. Mathijs also said that the animation was a love-hate affair among its viewers, but it was influential enough that two of its voice actors were invited to reprise their roles (although whether this last part is a result of Bakshi is debatable) [p. 62]. It also stated the BBC radio version was the definitive version, compared to Bakshi's [pp. 65–66]. Furthermore, Jerry Beck in his The Animated Movie Guide did not call it "flawed but inspired interpretation". He said, "As artistically as this film is in many ways, many Tolkein loyalists intensely dislike Bakshi's version of The Lord of the Rings, deploring what they consider the cheap-looking effects and the missing ending." Not to mention that Beck devoted one paragraph to personally judge the film, in equal halves, praising the first half but particularly condemning of the second. The fans' reactions are important. When covered by a reliable source, they are a piece of all-rounding information. Consider p. 116 of The Rough Guide to the Lord of the Rings, which definitely shows a bad memory of the animation. Douglas Pratt was quite critical as well in his Doug Pratt's DVD. If you want something contemporary, then what about this 1978 damning review by David Denby in New York magazine? All in all, the animation's failings and poor reception are not a fringe item to deal with, and the current text in the article is overlooking them. Lastly, there are several publications that mention the animation was an influence on the staff of the film trilogy and a few fantasy artists. Look for Jackson's and Astin's biographies. Jappalang (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The article mentions Bakshi expressing disappointment with the film and its animation, refers to the critical reaction as being mixed, but that reviewers generally felt that it was a "flawed but inspired" adaptation, and gives two mixed reviews from major film critics. This article has been extensively researched. Many of the items you come across report inaccurate findings. For one thing, the film's gross was not "paltry", as it only cost $4 million to produce. Secondly, I cannot trust any of the claims you make when you misspell Bakshi's name in a search result and claim that statements are made in the article that were never true. It never says that Beck made that statement. It says that is what critics generally felt about the film. If you cannot look at an article carefully, how can you say that it is lacking? And furthermore, how is a DVD review a reliable source in an encyclopedic discussion about animation history? And why do people keep posting links to books written more than 20 years after the film was released and minor reviews? And lastly, this article is about Bakshi, not Peter Jackson. Comments about Bakshi's film influencing Jackson's work are relevant there, and on the pages for his films, and on the page for Bakshi's adaptation, but this article is only discussing Bakshi and his work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I disagree totally. Dismissing results on the search term is incorrect is totally trying to be blind and immature here, when the results show the correct name. Many books and publications aside from these have generally noted that the film is not as critically received as this article claims.  More documentation of the fans' ire in From hobbits to Hollywood by Jennifer Brayton. "Disappointed audiences were booing the end of the film" as reported in Hank Bordowitz's Bad Moon. When someone describes the gross of $30 million as "marginally successful" or "paltry", one has to consider why—especially when the cost of marketing and distribution were not factored in. Depending only on favorable reviews from Ebert and Canby is a fatal flaw. Are their reviews so authoratative that it overrides negative reviews from every other reviewer? Can only the opinion so film critics be considered? Should fan reaction only be measured by box office takings? No. Seriously, the weight of presented evidence is more than suggestive that your constant dismissal of them as "books written more than 20 years after the film was released and minor reviews" is pure defensiveness. It is doing no good to this article, as others have pointed out that it seems to be no more an apologetic endorsement of the film maker. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of research into the writing of this article, and believe me, these results you post are biased and inaccurate. There's absolutely no proof of any of the claims being made here. The claim of audiences booing the film especially strikes be as being false. It sounds seemingly invented by the author to maintain an aspect of reaction that is purely fictional and invented. And, as stated above, the film did not cost enough to where $30.5 million (not $30 million) would be considered "paltry". It's insane to dismiss unbiased reports of the movie in favor of biased reports that describe a failure that never existed. Adding these reports in would create a slanted, fictional view of the reaction to Bakshi's films. How are any of these authors authoritative, or their books truthful? Should we cite Albert Goldman's The Lives of John Lennon in an article about Lennon? Ibaranoff24 (talk) (03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
That image is being used because the poster showcases a number of memorable sequences from the film and illustrates the best generalization of the character. In these images, we see the film's value as an entertainment piece, and why it would be viewed as controversial within its period, in conjunction with the associated text. It's not decoration. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
No, that image does not show anything that could be controversial; except for the cat in the center, nothing else is recognizable. A single screenshot of what made the film "X-rated" would have done better than this image. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Coonskin screenshot.png: could be made fair use with a stronger rationale. The FUR (on the image page) should explain why these images lead to the "racist" calls piled on Bakshi.
The rationale is to explain why the imagery is controversial (how could someone call it racist), not to simply state the imagery is controversial. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Ralph Bakshi The Lord of the Rings.jpg: again just like the poster, this is just pure decoration. You missed a very good opportunity to establish a fair use for this. Look at Bruce's (of Cinematastique) comments noted in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia above. Look for Bruce's article and integrate his comments into the text, then justify the image by writing in its FUR that the image is a particularly strong indentification of the film, and representative of Bakshi's work.
No, it is not decoration. It illustrates a major work of a well-known artist. Because we cannot see what the animation looks like in the text, this image provides illustration as to Bakshi's comments on his disappointment with the animation quality, the mixed reactions, favorable notice of the film's animation, etc. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
It is decorative as long as the FUR is not stating why specifically that image is used. Why should this scene illustrate the film technique quoted? Does it show the live-action footage? Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically, FURs are to explain why the images should be on the page and cannot be explained by text, and in terms of why their removal would result in a significant loss to the article. None of the rationales presented for the non-free images here are particularly strong. The poster would likely have to be removed, the coonskins could be saved, while the fireside scene would be saved if the appropriate content is worked into the text and FUR re-written. Jappalang (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment — I'd just like to ask the readers who think that I need to go into extensive detail about how the Lord of the Rings film was viewed 20-plus years after the fact...do I also have to list every review of Fritz the Cat and Coonskin? Do you want an article that keeps going on with quotes from minor critics who didn't like Bakshi's works, or do you want a serious academic discussion of an animation figure? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
I don't think undue weight needs to be given to reviews of his work, but also don't think we can gloss over any negative aspects of it. --Laser brain(talk) 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The overview of each work's response should be weighted accordingly to the material that cover it. We do not go into detail, but neither should it present a skewed view of how each work was received. Jappalang (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As stated above, the view of the work is not skewed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC))