# Talk:The Iron Giant

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Archer, Jacque Day (2006). "The Iron Giant: A Gun with a Soul". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 256–268. ISBN 0786421495.

Removed "One of the more criminally underrated films in the world." I happen to agree, but assertions like this at least need to have a justification in order to be NPOV. arj 13:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


### Martian Origins?
I think anyone who saw the movie agrees with the deep 60-ish feel everything has -- including the Giant in its Attack mode. Maybe it's just the POV of a tonza brazilian guys, but everyone here agrees the Giant is surely martian.
What we present as proof is its visuals and 'energy guns', commonly associated to them in Atomic Horror movies of the time. The firing pods at the end of its 'tentacles' coming from his back are just screaming that. I think it worths a mention, even if only in this talk page.

The Giant's back-tentacle rayguns were influenced by War of the Worlds artistry. -Lyinginbedmon, 09/11/2007 15:03  —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Hogarth and Dash from The Incredibles look very simmilar. This is probably because both movies were directed by Brad Bird. Should this be mentioned in the article?

There's a character named Hogarth in The Incredibles?  Did I just over look that character or what?  Not being sarcastic if I come off that way, just asking.
No, Hogarth looks like Dash.  There's no Hogarth in The Incredibles. Aaronstj 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Dash resembles Hogarth at all! I'm removing that sentence unless a reliable source comparing the two can be found. Voretus 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes! Hogarth and Dash look just like each other, mainly in their faces. Imagine Hogarth in an Incredibles outfit... dogman15 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the deer "cruelly killed for sport."  I changed that to "killed by hunters."  We don't know their motivation, and the kill appears to be clean, competent, during hunting season and with the expectation of eating it.  "Cruel" is opinion and not relevant.  The robot would be upset with any death.Mzmadmike 14:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "the expectation of eating it"?  That is your assumption.
I've removed this partial statement: "(as he cannot control his weapons and they are contrary to his developing identity)"  This is a perfectly valid interpretation, and is probably right to some extent, but it's still speculation.  No reason is outright stated in the movie, but "save Hogarth and the town" is a much more obvious motivation.  Unless the writer says this was part of his reasoning, or some new footage comes out where someone says it, it doesn't fit.192.88.124.201 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Man, This was an awesome movie. They really should make a sequel. Fatandlazy11 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No they should not. I don't want to experience the possibility of them marring the film with a sub-standard sequel. AllStarZ (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one who noticed that there was A LOT of cursing in this movie? --Jnelson09 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there was much swearing. Voretus 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw Bambi in that sequence. Any possibility that the script might have been influenced by that film? --Dumarest 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if/what kind of audio effects were applied to Vin Diesel's lines?  I always wondered if he provided the metallic tones or if that was audio engineering.
128.113.148.163 17:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely enhanced, but I don't remember how, or where I encountered that fact.  I'll check my DVDs next time I watch the film.  --JohnRDaily 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
you are not smartmy sir  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.91.150.165 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 

I don't like the fact that this article refers to the Giant as an "it" and not "he". That really irks me. Are there any repercussions (sp?) for replacing all "it"s with "he"s in relation to the Giant? -dogman15 05:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, other than being voiced by a male actor, do you have any reason to believe the robot is a male? Changing the personal pronouns to anything gender-specific seems unencyclopedic to me. Hogarth may think of the robot as a "he" but the robot is a machine. Machines are "its" whether they show emotion or not. ROG 19 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless we somehow find credible and reliable footage of what part the Giant plays in the reproduction of his genus/design, I don't think we can apply any gender to it without anthropomorphosizing it based on it's physical characteristics. Therefore: It -Lyinginbedmon, 09/11/2007 15:06
Hogar says "him,not it"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.119.112 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 

Warner Revamps Ad Campaign For The Iron Giant
The Iron Giant Produces A Thud
Kids Drive Movie Market
Interview: Brad Bird
Iron Giant, The: How do you hide a 50-foot robot from your mom?
More McCanlies, Texas
A Giant Among Animators
Iron without irony
Interview with Tony Fucile
Sky Captain: An Interview with Robots Producer Jerry Davis
Cinematic Pleasures: The Iron Giant
From Iron Giant to The Incredibles: The Incredible World of Brad Bird
A Gun with a Soul: Brad Bird on The Iron Giant
Iron Lion: An Interview with Tim McCanlies
Article search
Wildroot 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Iron Giant is a very well written article, with plenty of illustrations. However, the article has less refs than I would have liked, but not enough to fail the article (I almost did fail this article). Congratulations to all who contributed to this article! RC-0722 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks man! I still intend to use those references listed above. Don't worry. Wildroot (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the further reading section listing Ted Hughes books is relevant to the article.  It may be an animated movie, but it was based on the book by Ted Hughes originally.  I would like the section put back again.  Stellar (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 

Is all that business about a negative review really important or significant?  It's from a no account editor from an obscure website (rank 360,106 on Alexa), and it's just plain obnoxious.  It doesn't fit the article or add anything useful, and seems like a personal plug. I'm planning to remove it.  Thoughts?24.226.20.41 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think including the negative review balances out the many positives.  While 90%+ were positive it is still not balanced if some other views are excluded.  I agree they should be included.  Stellar (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
When I started work on this article I couldn't really find any other logical negative articles from some looser of TheMovieBoy.com As Wikipedia, we should included different perspectives, however I look back and wouldn't mind if someone deleted it. It was really the only negative review I could find, it's just the fact that this film is so good I guess, I don't know. Wildroot (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reevaluation, I still think the guy is a total loser/jerk, but I think it was prudent to include a negative review.  The Washington Post did a negative review.  Maybe I'll add some mention of that if I can hunt it down.24.226.20.41 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The studio that released this film is "Warner Bros.", not "Warner Brothers". The studio does not spell out the name in any of its official documentation, on its website, etc.
Also, there is very little information on the actual production of the film (not even a listing of the head animators). Until I added it, there wasn't even a mention of Warner Bros. Animation, which is akin to not mentioning Pixar in an article about Toy Story. This would need to be addressed if the article is to move beyond good status. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When the General ordered the nuclear submarine to target the Giant, the coodrinates given were 44.50177 -67.71972 (Google Maps) --80.222.196.205 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember that Cartoon Network would run 24-hour-marathons of this movie once each year, at least until 2003. I think this should be noted. 71.48.76.59 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the cited links are dead. For example only the first link is the reference for not less than 9 quotes, this is a serious problem for the whole article! --93.135.61.111 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added links to archived version of the linked page for this reference and many other references in this article. You should be able to access an archived copy of the page now. - Kollision (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A confusing sentence, stating that three U.S. congressman were enlisted to advertise for the movie is sourced to citation 15, which is a dead link that I cannot find.  --64.19.13.218 (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stung by criticism that it mounted an ineffective marketing campaign for its theatrical release, Warner Bros. revamped its ad strategy for the video release of the film, including tie-ins with Honey Nut Cheerios, AOL and General Motors and secured the backing of three U.S. congressmen (Ed Markey, Mark Foley and Howard Berman)."
It feels like the article just leaves off at this point. Was this change successful? How much did it make on video? --173.58.183.29 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that perhaps the 2007 Transformers movie is kind of a fusion of this film with the existing Transformers idea. And this film was probably to some extent influenced by Transformers -- they can't of been totally unaware of the 1986 movie and successful TV series? I'd really like to read some discussion of that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.46 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC) 

In the lead section, it says that the genre of the film is a "science fiction fantasy action film." I think two genres in the lead section are enough to be used in the lead section. Rather than getting involved in an edit war over this GA, I am taking the WP:BRD route and opening a discussion here. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
you meant is science fiction fantasy action drama film -dewy60
I cahnged it back to Scienece fiction-fantasy-action film, because that is what it is. - Dpm12

Unfortunately, even if it is, I think this requires some discussion. Let's take a look at the Allmovie and AFI databases which detail the genres of the film. The Allmovie database classifies it as a "Children's fantasy film". It does not really list the science fiction or action anywhere there. The AFI database lists it as "science fiction". No "action" genre there either. Therefore, I think the best option is to list it as a "science fiction family film". Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking around at WT:FILM to see what we should do about this. In the meantime, we should not edit war as we don't want the GA to be unstable. If there is consensus to change, it will change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Per wiki-guidelines we go with what WP:RSs state. The film does not fit into the "action" genre. I would support it being listed as a "Science fiction-fantasy" film. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be most appropriate to call it an animated science fiction film per chapters on this film in The galaxy is rated G : essays on children's science fiction film and television and Science fiction America : essays on SF cinema. These were the only key results in books (at least when searching via WorldCat.org). I am not keen on relying on database's classifications since they tend to be a hodge-podge of possibilities. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The 09:22, 27 February 2016‎ 68.13.155.55 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article.--Wing (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The film absolutely does not specify that the final scene of the Giant is at any particular locale. Who is adding that glacier-in-Iceland claim, and what evidence are you claiming for it? 
This non-evidenced claims was made by anon IP 89.160.238.252 on Sept. 11, 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I realize this is super old but I just saw it today so I thought I'd add a bit of information. There's actually a caption near the end of the film (just before it shows his foot hopping through the snow) that says "LANGJOKÜLL GLACIER, ICELAND". It's easy to miss because there's no audio associated with it. -- edi(talk) 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Old or not, thanks for bringing it up. It looks like this was resolved a bit later, but not noted here.[1] Looks like we're good now. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there any connection to the '60s cartoon Gigantor? If yes (or no) should it mentioned in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsew2k (talk • contribs) 04:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 

Coincidental. They are both Giant robots. Although apparently some Gigantor fans were concerned at the time the Iron Giant was being developed. (See also [Kimba_the_White_Lion#The_Lion_King_controversy].)
In the book Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture by Carol Stabile, there is the following line "Gigantor was probably a key source for Brad Bird's adaptation of Ted Hughes'The Iron Man (1999). " [2] but I would not include such speculation.
Hugo Awards winning artist Frank Wu wrote his own review of the Iron Giant calling it "the best boy-and-his-giant-flying-robot movie ever" noting that it was competing against his rose-tinted imagination of all the boy and robot shows he and others had grown up with, and he mentions several, putting it all into a larger cultural context which I found particularly insightful. -- 109.79.69.130 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In the section, "Signature Edition," I have added information about The Art of The Iron Giant book which released coinciding with the new version of the film.  Timothymably (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC) October 5, 2019

I have also purposed an added sentence for the Legacy section in which I include cited information about controversy surrounding Ready Player One which included the Iron Giant in a battle sequence.  Timothymably (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in that source even suggests controversy. The source is from before the film came out, and in context "freaking out" is hyperbole meaning people are interesting in seeing the film.
You would need a reliable source from after the film came out where people express objections to the appearance of the Giant in the film. Also "controversy" is a loaded word, another words such as "criticism" might be more fair and neutral term if you can find appropriate reliable sources. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

An article from a site called BombReport.com was added claiming the budget was as low as $48 million.[3]  (It seems [the change] was first made by User:Websurfer246.) It is difficult to know if this source is reliable.
The other sources put the budget at $70 million [4] to $80 million. 
The-Numbers.com puts the budget at $50 million [5]. 
None of these sources include any claims or explanations that these figures were "including prints and advertising" or based on any kind of tax breaks or rebates. 
Template:Infobox film says not to cherry pick budget figures, and without reliable sources strong enough to discredit any of these numbers we should list a range. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to clutter the Infobox with awkward labels attempting to explain what should be detailed in the article text, especially based on a source that is not easily available for us to check.
I see the article text claims the budget was $50 million plus a further $30 million for marketing. That fits with the figure listed by The Numbers. This would make make Box Office Mojo plain wrong (it wouldn't be the first time). If there was WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would could agree to not include the higher figure in the Infobox because as the article text explains it is not actually the budget, and instead list the budget as $48-50 million. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I searched Variety.com and the LATimes.com as they often have budget information but wasn't able to find anything. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
More mentions of the budget being $50 million [6] or $40 million [7]. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the book 100 Greatest Cult Films By Christopher J. Olson the budget was $55 million (google books doesn't allow me to preview the corresponding footnotes to further verify) https://books.google.ie/books?id=yUdODwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&dq=iron+giant+budget&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3iq6TlJ3lAhViolwKHf26APgQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=iron%20giant%20budget&f=false -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
What's Olson's source for that figure?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, Google books did not allow me to read the corresponding footnotes page so I can't even say if that book specified where it got $55 million from.
There's a preponderance of evidence that the figure provided by Box Office Mojo is not the budget figure, and the article text explains this. I don't think removing an incorrect outlier with a reasonable explanation could be considered cherry picking and I think it would be reasonable on this occasion to remove the misleading figure from the Infobox. -- 109.79.166.202 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the high figure, as stated above the article body already points out that the higher figure is incorrect, and the article intro uses the lowest $48 million figure as the budget.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.142.35 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The 48 mil figure comes from Bomb report, which is a self-published blog and therefore not a reliable source. The budget is consistent reported as around $50 million although some sources report it as $70 million or $80 million. The higher figures are obviously including the marketing costs as well as the negative cost, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned the budget is the negative cost and the marketing costs are something separate (see the instructions for the budget field at {{Infobox film}}. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with the $50 million figure, but I'm going to need to clean up the article body to match, and remove the misleading $70 million figure that is still stinking up the Box office section. -- 109.76.215.105 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear to me why User:Grandpallama wants to restore unnecessary details about Quest for Camelot to the introduction of this article. It was only recently added by an anonymous ipv6 editor, only a few weeks and not many edits ago. 
I was merely restoring the long standing WP:STATUSQUO and although I was tired and made a mistake in my edit summary when I first reverted the change, I repeated my revert because it was not an improvement. It is still is WP:UNDUE and unnecessary to explain those details at such length in the intro, in an already overlylong and unwieldy sentence. MOS:LEAD The intro is supposed to summarize the article. -- 109.79.74.4 (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This was a good edit by an anonymous ipv6 editor, given that the entire third paragraph of the lede covers the unexpectedly strong critical performance of the film in light of its most recent predecessor and the expectations that lay around that. The edit adds in a grand total of six words that clarify and provide context for the rest of the paragraph, and fully a third of the article covers the unexpected critical success of the film and the way in which expectations and marketing hurt it during its original release, so it's hardly undue, nor is it covering anything at length. Your initial reversion was based upon a complete misunderstanding of the text, yes, but an argument about the text being undue or not adhering to guidelines for a film lede doesn't hold much water here. Grandpallama (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The other film failed, Warners were spooked and failed to adequately promote the Iron Giant. This article is about The Iron Giant, the details of why the other film failed are irrelevant to the Iron Giant and there no need for the intro to give it even those extra six words. The intro is supposed to summarize, six extra words about a film other than this film that were not there until recently were clearly unnecessary. Anon editors are always adding extra cruft to the intro in WP:GOODFAITH and there's absolutely no need for it. -- 109.76.215.105 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
the details of why the other film failed are irrelevant to the Iron Giant Really? Both the 'Animation' and 'Marketing' sections of this very article disagree with that claim, and your assertion that it's "clearly unnecessary" simply doesn't work. The recency of the addition and the fact that it came from an IP are irrelevant; the fact that this small addition to the lede is, in fact, a significant issue that is covered throughout the body of the article isn't something that you've addressed. At this point, I'm beginning to think you're just annoyed your initial, completely erroneous, reversion was disputed. Grandpallama (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have a good question: How or where is Hogarth confirmed to be 9 years old? According to the back of a DVD I used to have as a child, Hogarth is 11.--Sstanford2 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

In case my following edit is disputed, I am not convinced the film was released on the same date worldwide. I remember it showing in cinemas in the United Kingdom in January 2000 when I first saw the film and it was on home video there that summer. According to a Google search, possibly quoting the Internet Movie Database, The Iron Giant was released in the UK on 17 December 1999. It is also worth remembering that many American films were released in the UK months later than in the United States at the time including the early Pixar films. Tk420 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)