Talk:Tom & Jerry (2021 American film)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2024

While Kayla takes care of the hotel and manages the wedding with the crew, Tom and Jerry explore the city, but are imprisoned at a pound, after inadvertently committing fan interference on a baseball game. A vengeful Terence separately visits Tom and Jerry and feeds them lies about what they said about each other behind their backs, inciting them to a battle at the ceremony that throws the wedding into carnage and destroys the rest of the hotel. After Kayla comes clean and leaves in disgrace, Terence evicts Tom, and Preeta renounces the wedding. Realizing that Terence deliberately lied to each of them individually, Tom and Jerry put their differences aside, and convince Kayla and the hotel crew, including a skeptical Terence, to salvage the wedding. The pair lures Preeta and Toots to Central Park, where the wedding is held. 2601:401:4300:3720:71A3:210A:F19:B38 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:SNOW close with a clear consensus to move. Four !votes (including the nominator) supported the move per WP:DAB—existence of Tom and Jerry (2021 Indian film) over one counter argument i.e oppose !vote, who argued primary topic, which the community agreed wasn't the topic of the matter. Also, Tom & Jerry (2021 film) and Tom & Jerry will redirect to Tom and Jerry (disambiguation). (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Tom & Jerry (2021 film) → Tom & Jerry (2021 American film) – There is a Tom and Jerry (2021 Indian film). Decided to open a RM since Tom and Jerry (2021 film) redirects here. This film uses Tom and Jerry in many sources and that Indian film is officially titled as Tom & Jerry in posters. Didn't want to move the page per WP:BOLD because this page is clearly the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. We can always include a hatnote or change the current title to a disambiguation page (not sure if needed). DareshMohan (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Retarget Tom and Jerry (2021 film) and Tom & Jerry (2021 film) to Tom and Jerry (disambiguation), per WP:PRIMARYFILM. 162 etc. (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose The 2021 American film is still WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and still presence in almost all countries even in India itself. The 2021 Tom & Jerry Indian film is merely unknown overseas. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply here - that would be Tom & Jerry. See WP:PDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support: This is a case similar to Cinderella (2015 American film) vs Cinderella (2015 Indian film). And Cinderella (2015 film) doesn't redirect to the American film, the obvious primary topic. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 30 July 2024

Remove "redirect" hatnote at the top of the article. Tom & Jerry: The Movie has been retargeted to the much more logical Tom and Jerry: The Movie. 162 etc. (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please ban Ciscocat

Hello, admins. I am warning you about a user named Ciscocat.

The user was warned many times by admins over editing pages like this out of personal bias, and is the reason the page got protected. He also is infamously a stalker of mine on many social media platforms. Even after this, he is still editing the pages to make it fit his point of view rather than how the sources describe it. Trying to fix the edits is tiring me, at this point.

He is still trying to erase vital information and retconning the creative team's intentions to replicate 2D animation under a CGI workflow, with many software techniques introduced being pivotal to it. No matter how much I've proved him with information, he makes the argument about it being a "bias" when he is himself to vandalize pages.

Please just make him stop editing, for good. CriticallyThinking (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a record on your talk page of unreliable sourcing. You also become extremely sensitive about anybody denying that the film “innovated.” Meanwhile, many of the contributions I have made actually lift passages from the sources with citations.

I have never ever intended to “retcon the creative team’s intentions,” nor have I ever been formally warned for incorporating my bias, something that again can be found on your talk page. A number of things you’ve brought to my attention as “proof” aren’t necessarily info, just subjective quotations from the interviews in articles.

Furthermore, you have a history of attacking people including mutuals of mine over multiple platforms and continue to insult people including advocating for mockery. You also have a history of pursuing peoples’ reviews on Letterboxd (prior to getting banned) to argue about this film and insult them when they disagree. So tell me again how I am biased and erasing vital information. Ciscocat (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

I need to edit back the information I found that was pivotal to the page and proved the innovation behind its animation treatment that was removed by people on here who didn't even review the sources before reverting them. Just so you know, it was never obliged to log in to make edits. Two wrongs don't make a right, but edit-warring at the expense of vital sources and information for no reason does not benefit either side. I have been protecting this page ever since from people who infamously cyber-stalked me outside Wikipedia. The fact that this edit-warring is still continuing baffles me. So stop accusing me of personal bias, and it's completely unfair to block the page at the expense of sources and information. Please and thank you. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I even added more sources, like the YouTube video that showed how the "sketchviz" phase worked and that it's a new previs technique introduced in the film (as did many other software techniques were introduced) that was pivotal to replicate traditional animation. Instead of reviewing them, like admins should be, this biased edit-warring is still going on. Please and kindly. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Malformed edit request from sockpuppet of blocked user. Barry Wom (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Barry, you were one of those people who reverted the edits without reviewing them. I thought the entire point was to safely edit vital information? 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The content doesn't matter, the issue is that you edited through an IP to get around your main account getting blocked, a clear case of sockpuppetry that violates the site's rules. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 (2)

These are the edits that I wanted to revert back in, which were vital to the page and got unfairly removed without revision.

Above the page: The production innovated and introduced many software techniques considered pivotal in a computer animation workflow to replicate the results of traditional animation, including a draw-over phase guided by 2D artists.

Final paragraph of visual effects and animation line: Tom & Jerry introduced many techniques considered “unique" and "different" in a computer animation workflow, to defy the rules of CGI in favor of replicating the style and feel of a traditional approach "to every single character frame". To replicate the 2D visual style and character animation from the original Tom and Jerry shorts, animation director Michael Eames introduced a draw-over phase guided by a team of 2D artists, with character poses and expressions drawn over a rough edit. The crew called this technique "sketchviz", which is a new type of previs that helped the animators sculpt actual 2D character shapes and details they couldn't achieve under the creative limitations of a computer animation workflow. The technique became a reference for the animators to introduce many pivotal tools with every aspect sourced from traditional animation, such as "new rigs to squash, stretch and totally deform the characters," and a tool that generated hand-drawn outlines into the characters. The artists and animators also gained access to the original shorts, as reference material to help replicate the results of how the characters were drawn and animated in their original 2D cartoon shorts, alongside their classic comedic timing. Eames, largely deriving from a CGI/VFX background, described its animation treatment as "different to anything I’ve come across before" and that "the project’s demands for the animation were incredibly high, favoring a much more traditional approach than many VFX animators are used to". Story dubbed this type of animation as "2D-plus" describing it as "computerized 2D [animation]" that replicates the style and feel of a traditional approach, and achieves it "in half the time" than how long a traditional animation workflow would take to animate.

I really want this biased edit-warring to stop and have since been protecting pages like this from people who vandalized the page out of cyber-stalking me, which they have done outside Wikipedia. I thought making the place safe for vital edits was the point? 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Since you're a sockpuppet of a blocked user, these kind of requests can't be accepted. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It was never obliged to log in to make edits. Two wrongs don't make a right, but edit-warring at the expense of vital sources and information for no reason does not benefit either side.

You are violating the site's rules as much I am seem to be. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You are indeed not obliged to log in to make these edits, you just can't do it to circumvent a block. This is not edit-warring, we are reverting vandalism from a blocked user. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You are literally vandalizing the page yourself, by removing cited and pivotal information added in. You are absolutely no better. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not removing anything pivotal, I am removing NPOV-violating wording that doesn't reflect the sources, since your personal bias is clear and consistent. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources included a video that demonstrated how the "sketchviz" phase worked and was a new pre-vis pivotal to replicate traditional animation, and it was one of the many techniques introduced in the film. The animation director cited it's different and more traditional than anything a VFX workflow did prior, and Framestore called its treatment "unique". The director also called it 2D animation replicated by a CGI workflow for less time than drawing every cel. The info was 100% reflective of these sources. The personal bias was all on you because it didn't meet your expectations. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One of these sources even said that it's unlike anything seen before, while still being inspired by the hybrid technique of Roger Rabbit with a completely new and innovative treatment to the animation.

You are removing anything pivotal and making it seem smaller than it actually is. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying the crew working on the film didn't do anything worth praising, all that effort is commendable. But you can't just pretend your personal bias is somehow not a factor in you pushing this dubious idea that the film was innovating by using these techniques. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the sources again:

1) Sketchviz technique:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aK0MFQrPKI

2) https://www.framestore.com/work/tom-jerry

3) https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/tom-jerry-movie-coronavirus-quarantine-warner-bros-1202224214/

4) https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/02/frenemies-in-the-big-city-tom-and-jerry-director-tim-story-team-discuss-the-new-hybrid-pic/

It's not me. The production behind it literally considered it groundbreaking for CGI, as its traditions are completely defied for a traditional approach that is hard to do in CGI. YOU are the one being biased for disagreeing with it. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of those sources, what I disagree with is you just buying into marketing hyperbole this uncritically. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Terms like "eye-popping", "unique", "different to anything a CGI workflow came across and did" and "unlike anything seen before" were spelt out for you in these sources. All of them are quoted from them.

Just give up and admit you are vandalizing the page out of personal disagreement rather than because you even read the sources. I'm not surprised if you didn't, since you replied so quickly. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've seen the sources many times before. And yes, those quotes are the marketing hyperbole I'm referring to. Wikipedia does not use such marketing terms uncritically in an article like you're trying to push. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The 1993 Mario movie page here on Wikipedia also had similar wording like "innovative" to its many introduced techniques to digital visual effects. Even Spider-Verse, with its many clash of styles into one as "revolutionary". Why are those accepted but not this? 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those pages are backed up by many more sources, and you can't keep pretending your own biased love for the film isn't the main factor here. But like Aloha said, that's enough. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

And I've backed up many sources, even the sketchviz demonstration that is a new kind of pre-vis, and you declined them. Your disagreement is the reason why you reverted them. And like I said, the production team considered it innovative. Even if I would hate the film, I would still cite the truth. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The animation director, who largely even originates from a CGI background, even said it was completely unique for the film and different to anything a CGI workflow did prior. For something much more traditional. It's all in the sources. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounded more like it was the first time he'd made something like this, not that it was literally the first. And the sketchviz didn't seem that different from what any hybrid film has done before when planning their shots. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pre-vis has long been done in films. "Sketchviz" is a new subgenre that was introduced in the movie, and the only time it was ever done again was in Coyote vs. ACME.

\

It's a draw-over phase where assistant 2D animators would animate rough drawings over an edit, and the video showcased it's different, as did the sources. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Like Devon said, none of this is new. And that's fine! Not every production needs to be innovative, but you don't need to keep pushing this inaccurate narrative so much. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they’ve done that on other projects such as Hotel Transylvania and even Tangled. I’m not talking about the final look, I’m talking about the process of drawing over rough edits to perfect the poses. That’s not innovative, that’s been a practice for a long while now. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania was CGI animation that still followed the principles of 3D animation, just with inspiration from a cartoon rather than replicating a cartoon. Tom & Jerry's direction was to completely copy a 2D approach, and "sketchviz" is a new sub-genre of pre-vis introduced in the film that was pivotal to guide a CGI team to replicate the style and feel of classic cel animation. Two different directions. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The realism, the lifelessness, even the blurs in their movements, which are all CGI techniques, are completely non-existent in favour of even in-betweened animation that is exclusive for 2D.

Hence why the team even dubbed its genre of animation as "2D+". If the style and feel of a 2D replica was done for less time than it would take to draw every cel.

And if you wanna make the argument about CGI that is more on the cartoonish end, Madagascar did it before HT and Tangled. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Because they actually have a leg to stand on. Super Mario Bros’ process of scanning film to integrate digital effects actually became an industry standard in the following decades, and encompasses many projects. That’s different from Tom & Jerry maybe creating some new software to help develop a specific kind of look for animation. The concept of sketch visualization isn’t brand new, the idea of breaking rigs isn’t brand new, the idea of recreating some 2D effects isn’t new, and so forth. Name a facet of the process and I can probably name another project that did something similar if not the same. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry's direction was completely different to any CGI project done prior to animation, and it aimed to completely replicate the results that is exclusive for the style and overall finish of traditional animation, and for less time than it would take to draw every cel. It's not even cel-shading either.

It's something the creative team considered groundbreaking, as it completely broke the traditions and rules of CGI for something 2D. To the point where it couldn't be distinguished from 2D. The only time it was ever done again was in Coyote vs. ACME. 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re just saying a bunch of things that don’t even make sense. Seriously, and I don’t mean this as a personal attack, you need to get over this film and accept that maybe it’s not “innovative“ and other people don’t like it and that’s fine.

And to be clear, I’m not denying any of the methods that they used. They’re cool, and it doesn’t hurt to add that info (provided it’s not being added by someone who openly admits to evading blocks but I digress). But stop trying so hard to pass them off like they’re “firsts” because they’re not. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Sketchviz" was a new type of pre-vis introduced in the film as a pivotal technique led by 2D artists to guide a CGI team. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aK0MFQrPKI

Framestore, a CGI company, called its animation "eye-popping".

The animation workflow introduced many firsts that are different to what's done prior, for them to copy a 2D approach entirely. 2D artists were even involved and that says a lot, given there's so little you can do with CGI to even clone a technique known for its creative freedom.

Now you are admitting that your views are because you disagreed rather than because it was something new and unique for the film's production. What are you trying to prove? 198.168.48.213 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You have openly admitted to evading a block, and believe yourself to be entitled to edit just because you keep adding sources and information. Sorry but Wikipedia is a public project, and you don’t have ownership over a page regardless of how much you contribute to it. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are subjective terms that do not necessarily constitute a neutral point of view. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough. The page has been semi-protected to prevent further disruption from IP editors. Nothing more than that. I'm surprised more IP's haven't been temp. blocked for sockpuppetry though. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion adjourned. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection of this talk page. Enough is enough already.   Aloha27  talk 

References