Talk:Wallace and Gromit/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"Aardmon Exhibit Comes Down Under": And the embedded interview gives LOTS of backstory, including confirming that Gromit was originally a cat!

UPDATE: by original "Early Gromit was originally a cat!" author:

I now have an explicit independent reference that repeats my earlier recollection that Gromit was, for a breif initial period (early sketche(s)), a cat:

An article has just been published on the ABC News website, reporting that a Wallace and Gromit exhibition is coming to Australia. The article's URL on the ABC news site is at:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/wallace-and-gromit-aardman-duo-open-australian-exhibition/8655912

There is a video (courtesy of ABC News Breakfast), embedded in the story, where Peter Lord and David Sproxton, co-creators of the Aardman corpus, give an extended interview, including a goldmine of backstory about lots of things, including not just Wallace and Gromit, but also Shaun the Sheep and others.

(Nick Park was not present for the interview.)

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/video/201706/Bm_AardmanOnline_2806_512k.mp4

118.210.166.25 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No concensus.Skew towards oppose. Winged Blades Godric 16:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

– Although the series is indeed sometimes spelled with the word "and" (even the BBC website says Wallace and Gromit), and this article has been at this title ever since its creation as far as I can tell, it's occurred to me that every film, video game, and other creative work based on it that I've seen spell it Wallace & Gromit (note the ampersand). This would appear to be the technically correct title. We also have articles such as Wallace & Gromit's Thrill-O-Matic and Wallace & Gromit in Project Zoo which use the ampersand, so we could probably do with some consistency too. Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support move per nom.  ONR  (talk)  07:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for title consistency across the field of related works. bd2412 T 03:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (a) I'm sort of nearly in agreement with the move; (b) it doesn't matter that much anyway, redirects being the useful little creatures that they are; but (c) are we differentiating here between the usage in titles and in body text? I started trying to analyse what goes on on the official website and got myself fairly mixed up over this very issue. Most (probably all) logos there use the & but in text it is less clear ... does this matter, or have any relevance for this debate? Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I'm not sure about body text (although I suppose bodies should use the same convention as the title). Wallace and Gromit is sometimes used in text, but I don't think I've ever seen an actual title or logo use the word "and" instead of an ampersand, which leads me to conclude that Wallace & Gromit is technically the correct title. It's the same as, for example, video games such as Sonic & Knuckles, Puzzle & Action: Tant-R and Black & White: a quick Google search for these reveal that they are very occasionally spelled with the word "and", but the official title clearly uses the ampersand, which is also far more common in text. Indeed, there is a Black & White Wiki whose title is Black and White Wiki, not Black & White Wiki, even though its logo uses the ampersand. That said, Wallace and Gromit and Wallace & Gromit appear to be used interchangeably and in roughly equal amounts in text, even though the logos only use Wallace & Gromit... Adam9007 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The current form, "Wallace and Gromit" dominates heavily in an ngram search.[1] It's also found in numerous third party media sources, in addition to the BBC source mentioned in the nomination.[2][3][4] So even if it's titled a particular way in the actual movies themselves, that's a primary source and per WP:OFFICIALNAME we don't automatically go with that, we go with 3rd party reliable sources. And on the consistency point, if we want that consistency we can just as easily match the move the child articles to match the parent, instead of the other way round.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • How can we be sure that all or most of the instances of "Wallace and Gromit" refer to the franchise and not the characters? I don't doubt that that is the case, but we probably need to be sure. Adam9007 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the sources don't consistently use the ampersand, we should stick with "and" per WP:&.--Cúchullain t/c 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • But the sources don't consistently use "and" either. WP:& says we should use ampersand if the proper noun uses it, which it does, even though some sources use "and" instead. Adam9007 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If sources aren't consistent, we default to Wikipedia house style, which is "and" per WP:&. It also appears that "and" is the WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain t/c 16:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support & [5] [6] This is the form used by the producers. WP is not limited as their domain name is. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Official names are irrelevant, Wikipedia goes by the most common name. Going by the evidence presented so far in the discussion, it seems clear that the current title is the most common. Jenks24 (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Wallace and Gromit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wallace and Gromit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wallace and Gromit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Shaun 2

Why is there a note not to mention Shaun two.Fanoflionking 19:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sheepquel

Dose anyone want to help with the draft for the upcoming sqeuel User:Fanoflionking Fanoflionking 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

30 frames a day?

According to the article

30 frames a day = s little over 1 second a day. 60 seconds in one minute equals = 48 days. An entire 30 minutes short = 1440 days (almost 4 years?)

I find this very hard to believe

(The movie is around 80 minute long.. 3840 days to animate? Yeah right.)

This needs to be sourced. --Joeblack982 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The above article was averaging the time it takes to animate. Some days, more things would be recorded than on other days. Some days, two or four animators, or more would work to make it quicker and many other things would be used to speed up the animating time. One thing which takes a huge amount of time is lip-sinc.

The movie took about 5 years from start of production to finished masterpiece. --Lumic 11:47, 23 August 2006 (GMT)

The Behind the scenes extra in the movie also makes clear that there are multiple scenes and sets being built and shot at the same time.

Also this is per person anyway, so 30 people could do 30 seconds in a day, bye. 79.74.199.148 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I live in Adelaide, and heard a radio interview with Nick Park when he was spruiking one of his upcoming films. (See also, "Gromit was originally a cat!" section below, from this interview.) He said that they had three teams, working in mostly non-overlapping shifts -- one in UK, one in America (California?) and one in Adelaide. The director would lay out how a sequence would appear -- such as exchanging over-the-shoulder viewpoints -- decide how the scene cuts would appear, and then assign scene segments to various units. At the end of each unit's workday, they would upload their work to some agreed place, so that the next (or paired?) unit could work seamlessly with completed images (e.g. Adelaide might do a Wallace-shoulder-to-Feathers series of cuts, and then the UK unit would do the alternating Feathers-shoulder-to-Wallace series of cuts).

Adelaide is UTC-9:30, and had a local company which had separately become experienced in claymation, so they were a logical choice at the time Aardmon was in full production. I don't the interview touching on on how many animators were on each site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.89.139 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Edited the article's text for clarity. Each workstation/animator in the studio produces approx 30 frames per day. So the studio's total output per day is higher, depending on the number of animators at work. Yintan  19:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Grand Adventures Cast

Still new to editing Wikipedia so don't know how to edit tables yet but it was Ben Whitehead who voiced Wallace in the Grand Adventures games not Peter Sallis. Elskamo (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

New

shaun the sheep: A Winter’s Tale is now in darfts. Fanoflionking 15:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wallace_and_Gromit/Archive_2&oldid=978625208"