Talk:Toon Boom

Error/Mislisting
"Billy & Mandy's Big Boogey Adventure (2007)" is listed under "Warner Bros.", however it was a Cartoon Network production with (as far as I can find) no relation whatsoever to Warner Bros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.242.231 (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Question
Can we put past films and appliances on this page? Thank you, tregoweth.

Toon Boom
Of course, we put sequels on this page.

Like an ad
To me this article seems to be written like an ad.

---

I agree, I was looking for something objective.

-- isn´t it strange that this guy "23:20, 5 August 2007 71.217.121.31 (Talk) (268 bytes) (→Like an ad) (undo)" deleted the only critic in this article? (and added some pr stuff?) -- Elconejo 9:25, 10. Sep. 2007 (UTC-6)

this is totally an ad. anything objective that is added is being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siskavard (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * i moved the ad-like heading in the renamed "overview" section and added the citation needed tags. we should try to get some real references and reviews maybe to wash this pr-talk out of the text -- Elconejo 11:02, 18. Sep. 2007 (UTC-6) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

self editing
the last paragraph delete by ip 64.141.83.177 (which is located in canada.. what a coincidence) was really a bit much (looked like 1:1 copy from a press release). I think it would be appreciated if deletion will be commented in the future. --Elconejo 15:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that stuff because it was like reading an ad. This program is full of holes and from someone that has to use it everyday it's annoying to come here and read about how amazing it is when it clearly isn't when I get the time I'm going to add a "bugs" or "current issues" section and my sources will be someone who has to use it everyday, ME

If the program (which one by the way?) is full of bugs why all the major animated features films and TV series are using it? --Smiglio (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Toon Boom isn't the industry standard.
Hi there, I am a student animator, and have tried out the trial versions of both the regular Toon Boom Studio, and Toon Boom Studio Pro. The program doesn't function very well, the default is 12 frames per second, (not 24, the proper framerate), the watermark in "Pro" is horrendous. And the layout is confusing, and difficult to figure out.

Toon Boom is NOT the industry standard. I can bet you anything that the animators in the Disney Studio do NOT use Toon Boom as their animation program. Toon Boom is crap to me, and there other programs that are far more functional.

Toon Boom is a corporate scam. The list of films that "used" Toon Boom is bull.

That's why I tried to delete the filmography list, and edit the description about the clientele.

Is there any other animator on Wikipedia who could confirm this? Toon Boom isn't used by major animation studios. But I can't find an article on the web to prove it. PLEASE HELP! 5:24, 24, September 2008 (MDT)

EDIT: I read the other comments on this discussion page, and I agree that the article reads like an advertisement page. It seems to me that Toon Boom is trying ever so desperately to keep this page clean, and deceive people.

Read the credits of all those movies in that list, they all credit toonboom at the post production with "digital ink & paint software TOON BOOM TECHNOLOGIES" 68.47.12.149 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If Toon Boom is not an industry standard, then why did they got an Emmy Award ? Look at the making off in The Simpsons the movie DVD and you will see Toon Boom Harmony used. Look at articles in Animation Magazine, look at the demo reel on their web site, etc... If Toon Boom was crap, if Toon Boom was a corporate scam, dont you think they would have been sued already zillions of times by Disney, Fox, Warner, etc... for using their brand illegaly ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.253.78 (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Toon Boom Studio is their "home" application, and they have a suite of applications from flip book for kids up to studio-level workflow management systems. The article on The Princess and the Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_and_the_Frog) states that Toon Boom Harmony was used in the production of that film, as an example. One might argue whether "Industry Standard" is the right term, but I think you can be certain of their wide-spread use in commercial projects. Cmcguinness (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreamworks Animation
The traditionally animated films have software from this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.31.44 (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed filmography sections
Hi. The Films, TV Series, Music Videos and Video Games sections on Toon Boom Animation were removed in August for being unsourced. Can anyone here please find sources for the titles, or go to the Help desk for further assistance? Thanks! 5.167.49.12 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Toon Boom is so widely used that listing every title that used it would just produce a huge list that wouldn't be useful. It would be like listing every album that used Pro Tools, or every magazine that uses Photoshop. Trivialist (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, it's just a FILMOGRAPHY section. It's supposed to be dedicated to every film, TV or video game made using the software just like every other filmography produced either with software or other companies, and yet you don't even care. 85.29.164.158 (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When the filmography was included, it took up something like 3/4ths of the article. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. You could try creating a stand-alone list, though you should get some references for that. Trivialist (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Declined, because: (1) this was an improper use of the edit request template; (2) at least two fellow users (User:Trivialist and myself) agreed that the proposed changes were not going to improve the article in any way; and, most importantly, (3) the requested edit did not cite any sources, and the requesting editor was too lazy to look for sources himself. The user further refused to acknowledge that it was not the burden or responsibility of other editors to look for sources. (Oh yeah, it should also be mentioned that the requesting editor was a sockpuppet of the permanently banned user Nate Speed.) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)