Talk:The Green Hornet (2011 film)

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

Citations for use[edit]

  • The Green Hornet at Superhero Hype![dead link]
  • The Green Hornet at IGN (Video review)
  • Rick Marshall (2010-03-22). "Michel Gondry Talks 'Green Hornet' Legacy, No Cameo For Van Williams". MTV News.
  • Peter Sciretta (2009-09-02). "Tom Wilkinson and David Harbour Join The Green Hornet". Slashfilm.
  • Natalie Furlong (2010-07-19). "15 Things We Learned on the Set of 'The Green Hornet'". Moviefone.
  • Ross Miller (2010-07-22). "Seth Rogen Explains The Green Hornet Villain". Screen Rant.

Resources to use. Wildroot (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems here[edit]

This article might well be a bit premature, but in any event it makes too many statements without source and which are in fact dubious. As the text subsequently admits, Cameron Diaz, Nicolas Cage and Edward James Olmos are merely in negotiation at this point, but are flatly listed in the Cast section. Furthermore, the description of Diaz's intended character does not sound like Casey, i.e., she's a reporter, not his secretary, and the report linked-in there makes no mention of that character's name. The discussions of previous film attempts that never got of the ground are best left in the general article, and the Mid-Atlantic Nostalgia Convention has no relevancy here at all. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct about the prematurity of the article, Tbrittreid. According to Wikipedia:Notability (films):
"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."
...and further down the page...
"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
So, it appears to me that the article should have been deleted in the beginning and the info moved to the source material article. Live and learn! Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

At User:Wildroot/Green Hornet, I've been doing a clean-up of this film. I'm far from finished, but it's just a heads up. Wildroot (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel article[edit]

There is an article The Green Hornet (2010 film) that at a glance looks like an earlier version of this article. Certainly the opening line of the text and the infobox are virtually identical to what's here. Merging is obviously mandatory, but I do not know how to do that. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was merged to the wrong place. Since this is the only film by this name, the article should be at The Green Hornet (film) not here. The year of the film should not appear in the disambiguation parenthetical unless there are multiple films of the same name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only film of this name. A French fan film with its own article is The Green Hornet (2006 film), and, while not as yet having—and not really deserving—their own articles, there are two additional features, one cut from 1940's The Green Hornet (serial) in 1990, and the other from the 1966–67 The Green Hornet (TV series) in 1974, both titled simply The Green Hornet. The existence of those two should be allowed for, while the other article would have to be merged into the main article The Green Hornet to not mandate the date here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date change and 3D[edit]

Despite all the talk about a conversion to 3D and a consequential delay of release to January 14, 2011, Sony's official website for the film still says December 22, 2010! Should we state these changes as facts? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image at the right says the release date is June 25, 2010!? Chicka chick yeah. 128.100.71.45 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, consensus is that it is a useful disambiguation. Taelus (Talk) 08:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Green Hornet (2011 film) → The Green Hornet (film) — Unnecessary disambiguation. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, unless there's another film I've never heard of. Powers T 02:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; I guess I should have done my homework. That article on the 2006 film is nigh-upon useless, though. No reliable sources at all, and nothing about the content of the film; only a paragraph about, of all things, the TV show. Powers T 21:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unnecessarily complex disambiguation. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is another film, The Green Hornet (2006 film), which is based on the same character as the upcoming film. The fact that the new film will probably be significantly more well-known from next year does not make any difference: see Titanic (1953 film) and Titanic (1997 film), for example. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per standard wp:name and WP:NCF conventions. --emerson7 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; would prefer a review of the 2006 film's notability because I cannot tell if that film meets Wikipedia's notability standards. A search of the 2006 film in Google News Search in French only shows this, so I don't think there is any non-English notability we're not seeing. Perhaps we should consider putting the 2006 film up for AfD and then revisit the request to move this upcoming film to the (film) disambiguation. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose don't forget about the film serials, The Green Hornet (film) should redirect to the disambiguation page, Green Hornet. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if for no other reason than the existence of the article on the 2006 film. TJRC (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images?[edit]

So... could some images of the characters, the car, be put onto the article? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Ranger's grand-nephew[edit]

I just recently learned that a little known fact about the original Britt Reid character is he was supposed to be the grand-nephew of the Lone Ranger, whose last name is clearly established as Reid. It awaits to be seen if this version of Britt Reid shares this lineage.

Hi! I knew about this! The radio shows for both the characters were created by the same guy if I recall right. The Green Hornet inherited his mask from the Lone Ranger. In the new movie's end credits, they acknowledge the mask's design as being that of the Lone Ranger, and I'm guessing that's stems from the old TV-series. But back to the radio series, they were broadcast in the 1930s and in that decade, there wasn't as much time lapse from the Old West as there in now and even in the 1960s. If I recall right, the Old West era ended in the 1920s! By the way, I recall Siskell & Ebert reviewing a movie about a bounty hunter who in turn inherited the mask from the Green Hornet, thus continuing on the family tradition. It may have starred Rutgar Haur. (Spelling?) Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.192 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a Lone Ranger poster in one scene in the 2011 film, so they acknowledged the link in that way. Eligius (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and it's interesting trivia, but it's just trivia. We'd also need a third-party WP:RS cite to mention it.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Lone Ranger action figure that was Britt Reid's "favorite toy" in the beginning of the film? Isn't this worth mentioning? 75.67.3.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Box office references[edit]

Here are some references about the recent weekend's box office:

I used these references for the other opener The Dilemma, see The Dilemma (film)#Theatrical run. Useful information includes audiences' demographics and the CinemaScore grade. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Creative differences[edit]

Should the article mention Seth Rogen's interferences in Gondry's directing? http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/01/16/green-hornet-director-michel-gondry-its-not-really-my-movie/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.91.73 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length[edit]

Please read WP:FILM's guidelines before making major edits to a film article. Plots are no more than 400-700 words -- and even 700 is supposed to be reserved for more complicated movies than this. The plot section here, which had been trimmed to just about 700 words, then got bloated with (mostly) trivia to nearly 900. Aside from anything else, such as disregard for WP:FILM consensus, that level of minute detail is more than a general-audience reader needs to gain an understanding of the movie's plot. Wikipedia is not a fan site, where fans may expect an incredibly dense thicket of detail.

At the 700-word length that this plot section now is, if you add something, take something out.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times Building?[edit]

An editor removed a reference today to the LA Times Building being used for the fictional Daily Sentinel. Here's what the LA Times itself wrote, from the citation that accompanied the removed statement:

Over the next three months, the production will shoot in Sun Valley, Holmby Hills, Bel-Air, Hawthorne and various locations downtown, including City Hall and the Los Angeles Times building on West 1st Street, which will stand in for the fictional newspaper where Reid works.

This passage indicates that the LA Times Building was scheduled to be used for the Daily Sentinel. Given the huge logistical task of changing major locations, there's no reason to assume this did not happen. I'd like to ask the anon IP who made the change where he or she got the information that the LA Times Building was not, in fact, used. Because otherwise, we can't change a cited claim based on an anonymous claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just watched the blu-ray[edit]

And this part is not right.

--After the funeral, Britt fires the staff aside from his maid and Kato (Jay Chou), James' mechanic and a skilled martial artist.

Although I was distracted and did not see the firing, when I picked it up Bret throw the coffee cup away asking what happened to his fern (the design in his coffee). The maid says that Kato used to make the coffee but he fired him, so Bret calls Kato back (and we find out that Kato invented everything). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.99.27 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot vio[edit]

User:StangStud is edit-warring in order to violate the very basic WP:FILM guideline that movie plots be 400 to 700 words. I have notified him of this at his talk page, and have made neutral requests of editors who have made more than one edit on this page over the past couple of months to weigh in with their thoughts on the matter. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a third-party not involved with the current edit-war, I feel that several of the changes made by User:StandStud are unnecessary to understanding the plot. For example, the mention of "Bloodnofsky" is extraneous and is not central to the plot. Likewise, adding in details such as meeting at "Gonpachi Hibachi Restaurant on La Cienega Boulevard" or how Chudnofsky killed Britt's father "by injecting him with Apitoxin (venom from a bee sting)" just up the word count. Since there is an issue with the plot here being over 700 words, perhaps some of these extraneous details can be left out. There were a couple minor edits that were helpful (e.g. At "The Daily Sentinel"), though. -Multivariable (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having not seen the film and based solely on what was written here, I agree with Multivariable. The details added by StangStud seem frivolous and needlessly brings the plot over 700 words against guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Running time[edit]

I would have just been bold and made this edit, but this seems to be a minor point of contention. Therefore, I thought it best to discuss it first. The running time is 119 minutes. There is no source needed for this, just as there is no source needed for the plot. The film, itself, is the only source needed for the plot. This is also the case for the film's running time. The film not only runs for 119 minutes but the home media (Bluray and/or DVD) states that the film is 119 minutes in length. In addition to this, the film's official website links to Amazon, which lists the film at 119 minutes in length.  Chickenmonkey  01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be discussing; that's the mark of a good editor, and I tip my hat to you.
While WP:FILMPLOT says explicitly, "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." Unlike the plot, the running time of a movie is not internal content, but an external fact, the same as its film stock, aspect ratio, audio formats, etc. Template:Infobox film says under runtime only to "Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes," and makes no exception to WP:VERIFY, which all Wikipedia content has to adhere to unless specified otherwise, as in film and novel plots.
Films on video don't necessarily run the same length as films in theater, and home-video packaging doesn't always have correct running times. While in this case the home-media length matches a couple of the cited sources, it doesn't match others — including such reliable sources as The Hollywood Reporter. Obviously, Box Office Mojo and The Hollywood Reporter (among other places) didn't just make up a figure, let along the exact same figure of 108 minutes. Possibilities include that some critics saw a press-screening print that was later trimmed for general release after test screenings.
That happens, and it may well have happened here. We don't know. And because we don't know, we can't pick and choose when a number of equally reliable sources disagree. All we can do is report the facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the film is 119 minutes long. Reliable sources can be wrong. Since we not only have the film itself as proof of its own length but also have multiple reliable sources that have the correct length, it is not sensible to include a factually inaccurate bit of information, just because it happens to be from an otherwise reliable source. If a reliable source mistakenly called the lead character "Brett", would we then be obligated to include that information, or would we instead use editorial discretion and reason that the reliable source must have made an error?  Chickenmonkey  02:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've run into these people before, where they insist their "reliable sources" trump reality and common sense. Even here, where most sources do give 119 or 118 minutes. He even claimed I "arbitrarily" picked the running time of 119. There's no arguing with them - they can only be overcome by consensus. So go ahead, be bold and correct it. --Gothicfilm (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on an unrelated note, is it really necessary to list two "official" websites, when the one that was already listed links directly to the other one? They are technically just two areas of the same website.  Chickenmonkey  02:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, we seem to be ignoring the fact I mentioned that movies are sometimes reedited between early critics' screenings and general release. The running time a review gives is the one the studio gives as official length when a particular critic saw the film.
Second, where do we think the two running times came from? Critics don't make up running times out of thin air; they're given an official running time by the studio. So it's not a matter of this reliable source or that reliable source being right or wrong: They're all getting their running times from the studio.
If we're going to seek a consensus on whether to ignore either Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, that's a pretty big issue, wouldn't you think? That's going to take a WP:FILM RfC, and not just a handful of us discussing it. And, yes, when the absolutely equivalent likes of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter — the two entertainment-industry trade bibles — disagree, picking one or the other is arbitrary.
As for two official sites: Well, yes, they're both "two areas of the website" if you mean two areas of SonyPictures.com. But SonyPictures.com/homevideo and SonyPictures.com/movies are distinct and equal areas. On what logical, rational basis do you pick one over the other as the sole official site? To me it makes the most sense to link to the movie site, since that's the original product and anything else is just a spin-off. But I tried to offer a compromise — as I did with the running times. But it seems as if Gothicfilm just wants to have it his own way. Consensus is critical to Wikipedia. And so is compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it you think your "reliable sources" can't possibly make a mistake? Have a typo? And even if there was an early, shorter 108 minute cut shown to critics, it was never released to the public. That would hardly even be worth mentioning as trivia on WP. The infobox should only list the release version's running time, which in this case is 119 minutes. There's nothing arbitrary about it. What you have insisted on putting as the runtime now seen in the infobox is an unnecessary embarrassment.--Gothicfilm (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the shorter version got released and the longer version was shown to early critics. In all honesty, how to you know whether the Variety running time or The Hollywood Reporter running time is the release time? They're two different numbers. How do you know which one to use?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First, please do not bring me into the issue that seems to be going on between you and Gothicfilm. I just noticed this running time issue was going back and forth and thought I would open discussion on it, instead of it continuing to go back and forth in edit summaries.
Second, I did not ignore what you said. My point is that it does not matter that the film may have been edited after one reviewer saw it. The fact is that the film's running time is what it is: 119 minutes. I am not trying to seek consensus on whether to ignore Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. Of course we should not ignore those sources completely. What you seem to be ignoring--please correct me if I am wrong--is that the film is 119 minutes long; it does not matter what anyone says. Not only is that a fact, but it also happens to be objectively verifiable. We are not picking between two reliable sources; currently, we are choosing to include a factually inaccurate figure merely because an otherwise reliable source either received an incorrect number from the studio, saw a shorter version of the film, or simply made an error. Insisting that we must include inaccurate information because it happens to be from an otherwise reliable source is pedantic, at best.
My question regarding the official website was just that: a question. It just seemed to be a case of overlinking, when the added link was a link that is present on the official site we were already linking to. I do not see a huge problem with keeping both links.  Chickenmonkey  00:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit to being a little confused. You say 119 minutes is the objectively verifiable fact. Variety and other sources say 119. The Hollywood Reporter and other sources say 108. If I'm missing something here, I'll honestly admit it. How do you know which of the two, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, is right? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for creating further confusion. What I mean is that he film, itself, is 119 minutes. That's an objective fact; nothing changes that, because the film, itself, is the source for that information. Going back to my previous example: the lead character of the film is named "Britt". If a reliable source identified him as "Brett", for any reason whatsoever, it would still be an objectively verifiable fact that the character is named "Britt", simply by viewing the film, just as it is objectively verifiable that the film is 119 minutes long, simply by viewing the film. Having a reliable source confirm the film's length is just the proverbial icing on the cake.  Chickenmonkey  01:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK; I apologize as well for still being confused. I'm clearly missing something. You say "the film, itself, is 119 minutes. That's an objective fact." How do you know this? -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because the film exists. Anyone can watch it and see its length, just as anyone can watch it and see its plot. It is empirical information.  Chickenmonkey  04:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; this still doesn't make sense to me. "Anyone can watch it and see its length"? Nobody can "see" its length. The number doesn't flash up on the screen. Are you saying anyone can sit in a theater and clock it with a stopwatch? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Okay. Yes, anyone can watch the film and time how long it is. Or perhaps they can read the home media. Or perhaps they, like I, have any number of various devices that do tell you how long the film you are viewing is.  Chickenmonkey  04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
2-ish¢
On a DVD you can have an elapsed and remaining run time on the screen. That does give 3 different ways to get the full time - at the very start, at the very end, or adding the two at any point. That said, there are a number of assumptions:
  • There is only one version on the DVD.
  • That version is the same as the theatrical release.
  • There is no variation between regions.
While this is a potential way to deal with recent (post DVD) films and earlier ones that have been translated to DVDs, it doesn't cover films that never made it past VCR or LaserDisk or those that never saw home release. (VCR and LaserDisk should allow similar options though with digital counters built into the players.)
Beyond that... it is going to be contentious with some editors working under WP:FILM. And yes, this does come from Wikipedia's stance verifiability over fact and original research. It maybe time to bring this up at FILM to see if DVD derived run times are an acceptable exception to OR or if they need verification as to "A is A" - a reliable source stating that the version of Region # DVDs is the same cut as originally released to the theatres.
- J Greb (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is verifiable and is not original research. I did not just go to a theater and use a stopwatch. Not only does the film itself say it is 119 minutes, but we actually do have reliable sources that corroborate this fact.
If we do seek wider consensus, I will obviously go with whatever is decided.  Chickenmonkey  05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is verifiable only by someone watching the the film and timing it or looking at the run-time through the DVD player, it is original research. Full stop.
If it can be sourced to a reliable, verifiable secondary source, add the ref. If multiple run-times are cited by multiple reliable secondary sources, put the spread in the 'box and added a sourced section to the article. Hopefully the source will also spell out why the discrepancies exist.
- J Greb (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to disagree with you in any kind of confrontational way, but this is not "original research" anymore than using the film as a source for its own plot. WP:PSTS says (and WP:FILMPLOT references) "...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Though it is not exactly meant to encompass this, there cannot be a rule for everything; when there is not a specific rule for a specific thing, use editorial discretion. The length of a film is a descriptive statement that can be verified by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; it is not analytical or interpretive in any way. It makes very little sense to include inaccurate information, just because it can be sourced, especially when a reliable source does exist for the accurate information.  Chickenmonkey  06:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. To be putting in info which you know to be wrong, and citing a source which you know to be wrong is absurd. This is what we call blindly following the rules. There is no report or source that claims there were two versions of this film released. It does the readers no good to put in wrong, useless data. These instances need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and common sense should enter in to it.--Gothicfilm (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RE:"The length of a film is a descriptive statement that can be verified by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge": Verified how? With a stopwatch? That's original research. As J Greb correctly notes, we can't do that for a large number of reasons that I'm sure are fairly obvious.
We have here a rare case of a film whose running time is given two different ways by a roughly equal split of reliable sources. When the two leading trade publications, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, disagree, how do we know which one is right? We don't. For Gothicfilm to say, in the face of this, that his information is right and others are deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia by putting in "info which you know to be wrong" is both presumptuous and hugely insulting.
But I think a positive is coming out of this. We seem to be at a point where we're debating not about one individual film but rather about 1) the applicability of the Wikipedia policies of WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY as they apply to movie running times, and 2) the specifics of WP:FILM guidelines for movie running times. (J Greb's analysis — which includes the fact that home-video and theatrical release are different media and that the running time of one is not necessarily the running time of the other — seems cogent on these points.) This debate needs to move to an appropriate page of WP:FILM, where these issues can be clarified so others can avoid this particular discussion in the future. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, this particular discussion is exactly where it needs to be; it is about this film and the running time of this film. This is not about an abstract notion of the length of any film. That discussion can be had at WP:FILM, but this discussion is happening here, and is proving to be an example of Wikipedia pedantry. If the length of a film is not "a descriptive statement that can be verified by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge", then how is the plot of a film any more so? A reasonable, educated person knows how to tell time, but according to you, we do not expect a reasonable, educated person to be able to do that, because we have a reliable source that says clocks do not work the way you think they do. Therefore, we have to say "this film somehow exists in two states because a reliable source does not have a clock".  Chickenmonkey  16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The plot of the film exists within the film, onscreen and visible for all to see. Time exists outside a film, and can only be tracked with an instrument such as a stopwatch. Anybody can watch a film and describe the plot; you don't need an external device to do that. You do need an external instrument to give the running time. So who's stopwatch will we use? Yours? Someone else's? That's original research, and it's not allowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my final comment in this discussion, because I honestly do not feel it is a big enough issue to have even warranted this much of a debate. Whatever is eventually decided, I am fine with. With that said, time is time. It does not change depending on who is measuring it, just as this film does not change its length because I am viewing it as opposed to another person viewing it. This would be a different situation, if the film had a "director's cut" or "extended version" or "unedited version", but it has none of those things; there is only one version of this film, and it should be simple enough for Wikipedia to document its length. I am sorry that this is apparently so difficult.
The discussion at WT:FILM appears to be moving toward using BBFC as the preferred source for film running time, which would at least be a definitive answer to this issue and is something I certainly can live with.  Chickenmonkey  18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae asks: "Verified how? With a stopwatch? That's original research." No, it's not; that's a rather ridiculous claim. Anyone can use a wristwatch, an egg clock, a cuckoo clock... Not to mention the DVD player's on-screen time code. This is sophomoric sophistry you're engaging in; you could just as well say that no source whatsoever is admissible -- because reading it would be "original research"! Your question, "Whose stopwatch are you going to trust on measuring the length of that film?" is exactly equivalent to "Whose eyes are you going to trust on reading the content of that source?", so if the intrinsic, trivially-verifiable, objective length is inadmissible, then nothing else can ever be admissible either.--CRConrad (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can appreciate your passion and concern, and in a different setting, you might have a point. Within the framework of Wikipedia policies, put in place after trial and error over the course of years, however, timing something yourself is unquestionably original research, and if we were to take this to an admin or an RfC, the admin and the consensus would say, "You need a third-party reliable source for that claim."

If nothing else, the fact that running times vary depending on the source you use should indicate that perhaps not everyone is measuring the same way. Stopwatches, like any other timepiece, ran fast or show. People start and end their timing at different points.

In any event, as Chickenmonkey says, the consensus suggests that the BBFC timing, which measures not just time but a film's actual, physical length, appears to be the most reliable and objective source. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are "deuteragonist" and "tritagonist"?[edit]

I removed the wording mentioning "deuteragonist" and "tritagonist". This is an unnecessarilary complex choice of words, unfamilar to the vast majority of readers, and adds nothing to the understanding of the relevant paragraphs. Astronaut (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Deuteragonist" and "tritagonist" seem to be a version of peacocking. - J Greb (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overly complicated uninformative words to be avoided. Some editors add these like a rash to every article. They feel the need to point out the protagonist and antagonist of a film, like an assignment an English teacher might give to small children to pointing the noun, verb, or adjective, out of every sentence. This habit is ridiculously pedantic, the the two others you mention take it to absurdity. -- 109.77.113.86 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel plans scrapped[edit]

There should be something about how they could have had sequels and why people aren't interested in making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.218.145 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there was concrete, documented work and planning on a sequel that was scrapped, that would just be WP:CRYSTAL speculation and not encyclopedically useful. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptor in lead[edit]

"Superhero" was changed per discussion by multiple editors at Talk:The Lone Ranger (2013 film)#Superhero? Really?. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

The poster is marked as the "Teaser Poster" but I thought the recommended practice was to use the Theatrical release poster. Is the poster image wrong or is just the caption wrong? -- 109.77.113.86 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Superhero film"[edit]

The Green Hornet is a masked crime-fighter, as it says on the character's Wikipedia page, and is no more a superhero than the Spirit or the Shadow. Since the character's article has no support for calling him a superhero, we cannot call him a superhero here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Green_Hornet_(2011_film)&oldid=1202447224"