Jump to content

Talk:The Snowman

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

The Day Appears to be Christmas Eve

[edit]

I initially thought that this was when the events depicted take place. But repeated viewings through the years the years have brought up a few other ideas.

  1. There are no presents under the tree and the boy is showing off his new toys to the Snowman at one point. This would seem to put it after the traditional unwrapping of presents in the U.K.
  2. During their flight over the ocean they pass a ship where a party is in progress. One of the revelers is drinking champagne and does a double take as he sees them fly by. It seems more like a New Year's Eve party.
  3. The snowmen/women party at the North Pole finds Santa and his reindeer happily ensconced in their home. They don't seem to be rushing off, or returning from their round the world flight.

I know that there are valid arguments to be made against this, especially the events of the sequel "Father Christmas" (but this didn't come along until 1987), and it is not important in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to note them here to justify my addition to this article.MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was Christmas Eve, but all your points make sense. Maybe it is New Year's Eve. JP Godfrey 17:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"James"

[edit]

According to the synopsis on the official website, the boy's name is James. I didn't want to mess up anyone's work in case they didn't agree so I'll just leave it for someone else to update.--Thetriangleguy 21:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His present's wrapping reads "James, Brighton". --130.214.17.20 18:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, I think that in the current intro, Father Christmas refers the boy as such, doesn't he? (he even remembers the boy, too.) Visokor (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie and Owls

[edit]

I know this isn't really the place to mention it, but after Bowie makes his speech and it enters animation, we see an owl fly over the screen. Much the same as in Labyrinth where the same actor/singer becomes an owl...just a random thought. DarkMithras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.129 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Year?

[edit]

This page says the book was released in 1980. The article on Raymond Briggs says 1978. Which is correct? BillyH 18:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alternate intros

[edit]

The feature itself might be just 23 minutes, plus one of three intros. The intro situation is very confusing -- it may be hard to determine which intro is included with various versions. And a particular version may not really include the intro it says it does! 69.87.193.151 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

"...the blame lies with Sony Home Video, not Amazon. The DVD box has "with a special introduction by David Bowie" clearly marked on the back, even though the intro is nowhere to be found... it's Sony that has screwed up this time around."

"... over the years, three introductions to The Snowman have been made - the original with Raymond Briggs himself walking through a field that morphs into the animation, the David Bowie introduction that was made for American audiences who were believed to need a celebrity (and which many people find fake and dislike), and a 20th anniversary animated intro using the 'Father Christmas' character from another Raymond Briggs book/movie. Many people... feel the original Raymond Briggs introduction to be the best and most genuine. It has never been released on DVD in the UK. ... It's personal taste - everyone seems to prefer the intro they saw on first watching The Snowman."

The 1982/1993 Columbia TriStar NTSC VHS has a very short live-action intro with voice-over narration -- these may be Briggs, but there don't seem to be any credits telling us for sure. The tape is labelled 26 min; the sleeve is labelled 29 min. ISBN 0-7912-0007-8 UPC 1157501413 69.87.194.91 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Snowman 1993 29 min; and
Father Christmas 1997 25 min (including material from Father Christmas Goes on Holiday)

This DVD has no "extras". The version of The Snowman seems to be entirely the original VHS - same RB in the field intro, same child voice singing the main song, exact same credits with no credit to narrator or singer. I am starting to doubt that there really is any version of the video that uses an alternate Aled Jones singing, in place of Peter Auty. The video of Father Christmas seems to mostly be from the Holiday book, a little from the Father Christmas book, and overlaps with The Snowman by repeating scenes of partying at the North Pole, including the boy (James). 69.87.203.130 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Snowman 1982/1993; approx. 27 min; English and French; no extras; not rated

This DVD has no "extras". The version of The Snowman seems to be entirely the original VHS - same RB in the field intro, same child voice singing the main song... -69.87.203.23 (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alternate singer

[edit]

The original soundtrack singer was Peter Auty. Aled Jones was more popular on the radio, soon after the original release. Later re-releases of the film appear to substitute Aled Jones. Is this really true? Is Peter Auty being credited, but not actually included? 69.87.193.97 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1982/1993 NTSC VHS has no credits on the tape or the sleeve for the singer! Does any version explicitly credit the singer, anywhere? 69.87.194.91 16:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's a myth that Aled Jones' version was ever used. Why would they bother changing it? Especially as the myth seems to pertain to late 80s/early 90s releases, by which time there would have been no cachet in having Aled Jones on the soundtrack anyway. In 1985 as a cash-in, there may have been some point to it, but later? Nah. -88.110.217.242 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot

[edit]

The book has a simpler plot than the movie. In the book, there is no motorcycle ride, and they only fly to the coast; there is no cruise ship, and no trip to the North Pole, no Father Christmas etc. The plot description in the article is for the film version. In the book, the boy has no name, but in the film the tag on the present lets us know he is James. The book is a cartoon-style series of wordless drawings, in colored pencil or crayon. The film is a similar style, but with a very short live-action intro with voice-over narration. The song that accompanies the flying has words. — 16:29, 30 December 2006‎ 69.87.194.91

Completely instrumental version

[edit]

Does anybody know anything about a release of the film that has an instrumental version of "Walking in the Air" in place of the Peter Auty vocals? I came across a discussion about it on the IMDB board for the film and on a couple of sites, including a few comments on the reviews section for the film on Amazon.com. Apparently it's on the "Children's Circle" vhs release of the film and some broadcast versions but I've never come across it myself. Is it worth mentioning here? --Thetriangleguy 12:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an instrumental version for string quartet, released by Discrete (DISC 0702) as The Snowman: Suite, the performers the Paavo String Quartet.
In return, there is a folk dance pastiche towards the end, which is annoying because it doesn't precisely attribute the tune to anything in particular but is very much of the Sussex vernacular folk style. I've technically got a Maypole heritage title, having been taught the Sussex style as a lad by Freddy Hambledon, although I've never danced it since age 10 - like The Snowman, these things melt with the greater calls of adult life! Does anyone have a better attribution to allow me to kick myself about missing the reference?
As a wider question relating to the meme, we could do with a better analysis of the music as a composition here, section by section. As it came along at a time when I was particularly busy setting the world to rights, I've never really focused on it as anything other than a passing curiosity, yet now that it has set up home by the fireside, for a while at least, perhaps more attention could be paid to this than the relatively less important circumstantial aspects of the production. After all, you barely address the meat of the subject itself, other than in the Waling in the Air song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.184 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for [five images, all obsolete]

[edit]

2012-02-23 delete four renditions of boilerplate, same editor, same two minutes

Image:Snowman Outtakes 001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Snowman Outtakes 002 quality.jpg is being used on this article.
Image:Snowman Outtakes 005 quality.jpg is being used on this article.
Image:Snowman Outtakes 006 quality.jpg is being used on this article.
Image:Snowman Outtakes 012 quality.jpg is being used on this article.

Original UK release date

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be an agreement on the original Channel 4 broadcast date. IMDb says the 26th[2], but we also have had the 24th and the 31st. Is there any way of finding the true date out from a reliable source?

I wouldn't trust IMDB for a reliable source. I suggest looking it up in a book, or finding a more authoritive source. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the 80s and early 90s I remember it being shown either on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve. Channel 4's annual showing is definitely on Christmas Eve nowadays.80.0.154.147 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 26th is correct: 6:15-6:45pm, 26 December 1982. This information taken from the relevant issue of the TVTimes. 94.195.175.6 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast history in US

[edit]

What is the broadcast history in the US and the rest of the world? -69.87.203.150 (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history (film)

[edit]

US versions:

(Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
(Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
combines:
The Snowman 1993 29 min; and
Father Christmas 1997 25 min (including material from Father Christmas Goes on Holiday)
(Raymond Briggs introduction, Peter Auty singing, not listed in credits)
The DVD box has "with a special introduction by David Bowie" clearly marked on the back, but actually the David Bowie introduction is not on the DVD.
English or French soundtrack and subtitles. The French version dubs the intro voice, dubs in a French singer, and replaces the entire soundtrack and music, in mostly minor ways. No scene selection option.

Korean version:

  • DVD 2003-FVCD16, World Movie Sky Cinema, NTSC all region; UPC 8809151396046 KOM03863-PS5010
Although the cover art and DVD menu are almost entirely Korean, the actual DVD program contents are entirely the original standard English version, with the Raymond Briggs introduction. There are no subtitle or alternate language options, but a scene/chapter selection feature has been added.

-96.233.30.113 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfonia orchestra

[edit]
2012-02-23 moved forward/down six years and renamed, from the top "The Snowman"

The first paragraph says "The cartoon version was scored by Howard Blake who wrote both music and lyrics of the song and also composed and conducted the complete orchestral score for the film with his own orchestra, the Sinfonia of London." The Wikipedia entry for the Sinfonia of London states that "The Sinfonia of London is a session orchestra based in London, England. Muir Mathieson, the director of music for Rank Films, founded the ensemble in 1955 specifically for the recording of film music. " The two entries are at odds with each other. Which is correct? Tomandzeke (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

marked {discuss} in the article -P64 2012-02-23 18:00
The Sinfonia of London meme has since been expanded to explain this. One of the Owner editors might consider deleting this question as it is now answered in the Memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.184 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stage version

[edit]
2012-02-23 moved forward/down five years

The section for "Stage Version" states "The Snowman has also been made into a stage show. It was first produced by Contact Theatre, Manchester in 1986[4]." The Wikipedia article for Howard Blake states that "His famous song Walking in the Air, for which he also wrote the lyrics, was the success that launched Aled Jones in 1985, whilst his concert version for narrator and orchestra is now performed worldwide as well as the full-length ballet of the same name, launched in 1997 and in 2008 celebrating its 11th consecutive Christmas season for Sadler’s Wells at The Peacock Theatre."

The Stage Version section omits the ballet staged at a much more recent date according to the Howard Blake Article. Shouldn't the two Wikipedia articles on this subject be consistent? Tomandzeke (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

marked {discuss} in the article -P64 2012-02-23 18:00

Precedents

[edit]

I remember (though it could be a "false memory") that I encountered a story very similar to Briggs's "The snowman" before 1978, in a printed version with no illustrations, just text. I think it was a short story in a collection of stories. The style was rather like Hans Christian Andersen, but I'm not thinking of his story "The Snowman", which doesn't have much in common with Briggs's story. The story I remember reading has one feature that distinguishes it from both Briggs's and Andersen's stories: there's a bit at the end with the boy looking up at a cloud and thinking that the snowman has turned into that cloud. Have I confabulated all this, or does someone else know the story I'm talking about here? If it were the case that Briggs's story borrows heavily from a previous story it would certainly be worth mentioning that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.28.145 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28512889@N05/25375695137/in/dateposted-public/ which is Rupert flying through the air at night with his snowman accompanied by other snowmen from the Rupert Annual 1948, when Briggs was 13 or 14.

86.187.166.32 (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

After adding {{infobox book}} and providing some bibliog data (still incomplete), I have tried a few different layouts for the Briggs snowman, two Infoboxen, and the Table of Contents. As I write, {infobox book} is down in section Plot of the book because it includes no image.

The Briggs illustration is top left (is that location permitted?), much more appropriate than its old location in Plot of the film. That one is the best image. Does it illustrate the original book cover? Even if it doesn't, it may reasonably belong in {infobox book} at top right with {{infobox film}} relegated to section Plot of the film. --P64 (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I would say having the image placed there looks a mess, and certainly doesn't adhere to the manual of style. Yet, I think this discussion raises a good point that the article as it stands is mostly about the 1982 film, and therefore if you are planning on expanding the information about the book, this should probably be split into two articles - one about the picture book and one about the film, thus avoiding the awkward double plot sections. The usual convention is that the earliest adaptation takes precedence. However, I do wonder whether most people would be looking for the film over the book? Bob talk 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Super. The Briggs snowman does look good in the infobox. Thanks for the pointer. It may help to be more specific, Manual of Style/Layout.
Earlier I didn't find anything about two Infoboxen in one article, or about moving any Infobox into a lower section, which was my first thought to get the nice original illustration to the top.
I feel certain that more people will look for the film, although I followed a link concerning the book. I can hear the song so I must be familiar with the film ;-)
In this case I don't expect to do any more myself (except watch the Talk). Essentially, I provided {{infobox}}} book because the book clearly deserves it and the given infobox initially fooled me. And I re-styled the lead paragraph to give one initial mini-paragraph to the book. --P64 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI re use of both templates {{Infobox film}} and {{Infobox book}}, so long as we do not split the article:
I have at last noted this example among others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes — currently section 1 "How do you stack infoboxes?" and new section 10 "Joint biography".
--P64 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

Copied from File talk:The Snowman.jpg:

This is a short film, so poster or DVD cover is prefered to screencap. Screencaps are prefered for TV shows, because that's how they are recognized; every time a TV show starts, you see the title the same way, so that's how the viewer comes to picture the title. Not so with a FILM, like the Snowman. The fact it debuted on TV is irrelevant. Here's another example: Bang Bang You're Dead (film) Film Fan (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree here, the convention at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Image is that for television productions, which this clearly is, a screenshot is preferable to a DVD cover. To my eye it captures the "look" of the film much better than the "2004 special edition DVD" cover, which is evidently a much later creation by a graphic designer (the mountains in the background are not very representative of the film style, etc). Anyway, I'm afraid I've reached my WP:3RR limit with this, so somebody else can decide. Bob talk 23:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a one off TV special that was later shown as a film in many venues - I first saw it in a movie theater here in Colorado. It seems to have been nominated for both film and TV awards. The screenshot title makes more sense when it is a recurring series where you see the same opening titles for at a period of time - usually a year or two depending on the series. That does not apply here. Also there have been three different openings only one of which used the fade from Briggs to the titles pictured. Conversely there have been several different DVD covers. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other so I would suggest that you post a request for input at both the Film and TV projects talk page and if that does not satisfy either of you please proceed to dispute resolution. I don't want to see either of you blocked for edit warring. I also know that I have not satisfied either of you so my apologies for that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Image talks about television shows, not telefilms, Bob. A telefilm is a film -- not a TV show. Thanks for your input, MarnetteD. Film Fan (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrangement (Film, Book, Stage)

[edit]
This experiment follows up #Layout after several months.

I have collected everything about the film as New section 1 and drafted a new second paragraph in the lead. For simplicity there are no other changes except sequence, headings, and levels of intact sections. In this marked-up version of the old Contents, zero (0) represents the lead in two parts.

(0 lead paragraph on the book)
—insert draft short paragraph on the film
(0 three paragraphs on the film) —section 1.0
1 Plot of the film —subsection 1.1
2 Plot of the book
3 Alternative beginnings —subsection 1.2
4 Production notes —subsection 1.3
5 Stage version
6 New version —subsection 1.4
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links

Old sections 2, 5, and 7-10 are New sections 2, 3, and 4-7.

Is this an improvement? (IIUC, here are permanent links to the two versions: 1:59 Old; 18:18 New.) If this generally works, the lead needs attention and some later tweaks may be necessary. --P64 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the film before the book? This seems both illogical and inconsistent with articles about other books adapted as films. Seems to be putting the cart before the horse. BearAllen (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies

[edit]

In prose we say "Christmas Eve" and "26-minute"; in the infobox "26 December" and "27 min."

And the article content seems inconsistent with TV Episode coverage importance=Low! --P64 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier thread on this page it is stated that the Dec 26th date comes from the relevant TV Times. I am searching the web for it and haven't found an online version of it yet but I also have no reason to doubt it as i have found websites that list Dec 26th (which was a Sunday that year) but I haven't found any that list the 24th. As to the 26/27 minutes it may just be a rounding thing but it may also be due to the fact that the different intros all have slightly different run time. Thanks again for you work on this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sunday and/or Boxing Day, etc, relevant for some local or national reason? Eg, Commonly a second evening for tv Christmas specials, easily confused in memory?
Good points about the introductions. It would be best to have first edition runtime and a WP TV/Film convention about rounding, not my department. --P64 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Here goes. The DVD release that includes the Father Christmas film lists it at 29 minutes on the cover. When you play it the counter shows 27 m 15 (or so) seconds. The David Bowie intro is about 40 seconds long so at a WP:OR guess it would only add about +/- 20 seconds to the original. The 2003 release with the Father Christmas intro is 26 minutes exactly. I would think that we should go with the original run time and mention the shorter version in the body of the article. I also watched the "making of" feature but for some odd reason they do not mention the original air date. MarnetteD | Talk 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boxing Day is a specific holiday. It usually is the 26th but because that date was on a Sunday in 1982 it was moved to the 27th to give people another day off work - a bit like ML King/Memorial/Labor Dat in the US. That is why I had to alter my original post using the term. MarnetteD | Talk 22:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 version: The Snowman and the Snowdog

[edit]

Why is this referred to as the "2012 version"? As I understand it, it's a completely new film with the same character. Would we refer to The Empire Strikes Back as the "1980 version of Star Wars"? Seems rather odd. BearAllen (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering the same thing. IMO the info about it should be spun off into its own article with a mention of this one in its lede. Then this article could have a brief mention of it with a link to the new article. If you or anyone else wants to take on this task it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a minor change for now, I'm sure this could be improved upon, should someone have the inclination. BearAllen (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The animals

[edit]

The rabbits scatter - the pheasants fly away in fear - the horse gallops away - even the owl turns its head because it has been disturbed bt the sound of the machine. To use a word like encountered does not accurately describe what is seen onscreen. MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The snowman also creates terror among the penguins(?!), causing them to have a nasty bump, Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate articles for book and animation?

[edit]

The "Father Christmas" Raymond Briggs graphic novel on wikipedia has separate articles for the book and the animation. Should we consider the same approach for "The Snowman"?

At the moment there seems to be a lot of bleed through between them in the article, for example the The_Snowman#Book section starts with the line "The original book has a slightly different plot.", which makes no sense in isolation, and requires the reader to have read the synopsis of the animation in the preceding section.

Has this been discussed before? Pros/Cons?

--SnowmanJames (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make a lot of sense, as you say it's pretty unclear all the way through which iteration is being discussed - weirdly, even though the picture book was the first, I suspect the animated film would be the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Bob talk 18:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is not enough sourced info to merit two articles. This one can be improved to delineate between the two. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To further illustrate my point the Father Christmas (1991 film) is completely unsourced and consists of an overlong plot section and the rest is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Father Christmas (comics) has some sourcing but also contains a large amount of OR that is WP:POV. IMO it would be more useful to merge those two articles than to split this one. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briggs quote

[edit]

What's this all about? The quote is clearly referring to the story, rather than the snowman within the story, and the story is called The Snowman. Here's the quote in the film introduction. — Film Fan 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The close caption also uses lower case BTW. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On what?? — Film Fan 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DVDs. I have both the UK and US DVDs and the lower case is used on both. MarnetteD|Talk 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not going to just take your word for it, and the title comes up onscreen as he says "The Snowman". Pretty unambiguous. — Film Fan 02:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

This should really be split into two distinct articles, one for the book and one for the film, as this article is ostensibly primarily about the book, yet gets overshadowed by the film. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, it's been discussed before and I think it's fairly certain that the animated film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I've been bold and split the sections about the book into a separate article. Bob talk 21:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has a happy ending.

[edit]

And the book too.--107.77.173.19 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Snowman&oldid=1208326051"