# Talk:The Hunted (1995 film)

I am reluctant to make changes to the article myself, but I just watched this movie -- twice -- on MoviePlex On Demand on Comcast, and then promptly came on-line to look it up here on Wikipedia.  When I did, I was surprised to find several errors and discrepancies:

(1) The Takeda family compound or stronghold is located on an island; everyone arrives by boat.  It is a hilly and wooded island, to be sure, but it is not "in the mountains."
(To get to the unnamed island, they take the bullet train from Nagoya to Mihara, some 360 km or 224 miles away.  From Mihara they take a boat.  The mountains of Japan are far inland and to the north of the bullet train, not off the coast and to the south.)

(2) Most of the passengers on the train survive the ninja attack, because Takeda and his wife send them to the rear of the train.  Only the unlucky ones in the first two or three cars got butchered by the Makato clan's ninja raiding party.  So the article's present statement "instead allowing the ninja to slaughter an entire train full of people" is just wrong.
(As an additional matter, at that point in the film it appears to the audience that the ninjas simply managed somehow to follow Racine (Christopher Lambert) to the Nagoya train station.  Only later in the film is it suggested that Takeda may have sent them a message telling them where Racine would be.)

(3) Concerning the article's statement that "Paul manages to kill Kinjo - much to the satisfaction of Kinjo's third, who is now the leader of the ninja clan and withdraws the remaining ninjas citing that the endeavor is over":
In the version I saw, all of the ninja attackers besides Kinjo himself are killed in combat before the penultimate battle (which the article presently doesn't even mention!), which is between Kinjo and Takeda; Takeda kills the last two of them himself as his fight with Kinjo is about to begin.  Thus, there are no other ninjas left on the island besides Kinjo himself by the time Kinjo has defeated Takeda and Racine shows up to fight Kinjo.  And after Racine miraculously manages to defeat Kinjo (cutting off his head!), all we see is the arrival of the blacksmith Oshima, who has decided to return after previously making his escape from the island, and then the departure from the battle site of the three survivors -- Racine, Oshima, and Takeda's wife Mieko -- as they start to head up the hill toward the castle in the distance.  There are no remaining ninjas, there is no withdrawal of remaining ninjas, and there is no third-in-command telling them to withdraw, or that their endeavor is over.  After I read the Wikipedia article, I went back and watched the final scene a third time just to be sure!
However, the account I found here makes me suspect that the original (theatrical?) release of the movie may have contained additional footage that was edited out for cable, so I am reluctant to simply delete the apparently erroneous statement.
(FWIW, the version I saw was 110 minutes long (actually 109, plus a one-minute ad for MoviePlex at the beginning), but the article lists the running time as 111 minutes.  IMDb says the film is only 106 minutes, but may not be including the credits.  Either way, if Wikipedia's figure of 111 minutes is accurate, than there may indeed have been some footage cut that was in the original.  I have no idea how Wikipedia articles are supposed to handle such a situation, but it sounds like we may have a bit of an alternate ending.)

(4)  Concerning the article's statement that "He also spends time with Takeda's wife, from whom he learns the history of the two clans' conflict as well as the samurai concepts of courage and honor. During their time together, Mieko grows close to the gentle and compassionate Paul . . . .":
In the version I saw, she tells him about the conflict between the clans two centuries ago only briefly, as they first arrive at the island compound (the conversation actually starts on the boat), and they never have any discussion of courage or honor, or of any other samurai concepts.  She is not shown having another conversation with him until after he has already been bound and imprisoned, a few hours before the final fight scene.  They are shown spending time together before they arrive at the island (in the hospital, at the train station, on the boat), but not after, as the article's present wording indicates.  (In contrast, he is shown having many interactions with the blacksmith over the course of his 3-week stay on the island.)
Is it possible the original release of the film had a bit more interaction between Mieko and Racine than appears in the version being offered on cable now?  Or was some earlier author/editor of this article embellishing a bit?

76.114.95.207 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and make some of the changes I identified the need for above:

I changed the location of the Takeda clan stronghold from the mountains to an island, and indicated that only some of the train's passengers were killed, not all.
In keeping with a correction someone else made in one place but not another almost two years ago (December 28, 2009), I also deleted the remaining reference to Junko being Kinjo's second-in-command.  (Real-life master swordsman Toshirô Obata's character, Ryuma, was depicted pretty clearly as Kinjo's second-in-command.  As the person making the changes two years ago noted, Junko might not even have been third.)  At the same time, I identified her more completely in both the Plot and Characters sections.
I added a brief account of the fight between Takeda and Kinjo -- possibly the best and most important fight in the movie, and an incredibly glaring omission previously.
(The final fight, between Kinjo and Paul, is the one most important to the story, of course, but the fight between Kinjo and Takeda is the one that involves the two most skillful and proficient swordsmen.  Moreover, it also is crucial to the outcome of the fight between Kinjo and Paul.  If Takeda had not tired and injured Kinjo, it is highly unlikely that Paul would have lasted more than a few seconds in his own fight with Kinjo.)

I also added some other details to the last part of the Plot description, in order to better and more sensibly convey the flow and sequence of events.
In doing so, I also corrected an error I forgot to note previously:  While many of Takeda's men were done in by the swarm of attacking ninjas (and the rest by Kinjo personally), Takeda himself most definitely was not.  If he had been, he would not have made it to his big showdown with Kinjo.
I deleted the clause about remaining ninjas leaving the island after Kinjo was killed by Paul, and Kinjo's third and successor being pleased that Paul had killed Kinjo, because no such material appears in the version of the movie I saw, and it is inconsistent with all of the footage of both the big showdown between Kinjo and Takeda, and the final battle, between Kinjo and Paul.
The version I saw shows what appear to be the last two ninjas besides Kinjo being killed just before the battle between Takeda and Kinjo begins (one by Takeda, and one by his wife Mieko), and no other ninjas appear during any part of either of the two final fight scenes.  Surely if other ninjas were still on the island when Kinjo was still alive and fighting, as the statement I deleted implies, they would have come to their master's aid.
However, just in case there is an earlier version of the movie that really did have the scene previously described (which I seriously doubt), I did not add the fact that all of the other ninjas besides Kinjo, as much as all of Takedas underlings, were killed in the battle on the island -- even though that is what the version I saw shows.  The article's text as it now stands, after my changes, is silent and therefore agnostic on this point.
(As a result, it gives the misleading impression that Kinjo's underlings kicked ass against Takeda's underlings, when in fact the underlings collectively are shown fighting more or less to a draw with each other.  All die, on both sides.)

More generally, I did not correct, change or delete the editorializing and subjective commentary that one or more other, previous authors or editors had included.
Neither did I change or delete the assertions that Racine and Mieko spend time together while at the stronghold on the island, and discuss courage and honor, even though no such scenes appeared in the version of the movie I saw.
Here again, I suspect my predecessor simply was mistaken or inaccurate, just as he or she -- or someone else -- was about the stronghold being "in the mountains."  However, a brief conversation about clan history did occur between Mieko and Racine, and Mieko clearly did care for Racine and perhaps even grow closer to him (she cared for his safety from the outset), so what was written before seems close enough.

I changed hyphens to dashes, and "different than" to "different from."

76.114.95.207 (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hunted (1995 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs) 13:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  The lead is pretty short for a good article but that is probably the result of the overall coverage of the article, that I will touch on further down. Minor concerns with the use of clichés like "a score to settle", "finish off", etc. Lastly, do not use the phrase "mixed-to-negavtive", mixed already implies that it received some negatives reviews.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  but I would prefer to see more WP:THIRDPARTY sources instead of the DVD commentary. c (OR):  Although obviously true, the cast section and other easily verifiable content is unreferenced. The phrase "mixed-to-negative" in the lead conflicts with statement that it was "mostly panned" in the reception section, which BTW is an unreferenced statement. d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  Major pieces of information are missing from the article. While the production section does offer filming locations, there is no information as to when this occurred. More importantly, there is no information beyond that. Filming is only one step in the stages of filmmaking. There is no information on how the film came to be through concept, writing, casting, editing, etc. b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: I do not normally like to fail articles off the bat, but the article needs considerable expansion. There is just too much missing information for me to place it on hold. Please do not let this discourage you and keep up the hard work. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 As stated above, I do not normally pass articles this short but I will pass this one with advice from my fellow editors on a majority good faith basis that Daß Wölf (talk · contribs), the nominator and significant contributor, has exhausted all reasonable efforts to find sources for this decades old film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: With respect, I don't think this article merits a quick fail. WP:GACR states: 'The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.' While this article doesn't cover every major fact (casting, etc.), one needs to take into account that this film is not a Hollywood production and was made in a time when filmmaking news coverage was much harder to come by (no celeb blogs and the like). For example, the film is not mentioned in any books on Google Books, except in capsule reviews. I feel I've done pretty good research on web-based sources, and while I think there is probably more information to be had, it's probably only a few tidbits in a local newspaper, inaccessible to me because I'm on the wrong continent. While the article could use the expansion, I cannot add information that isn't available, and which would probably only make for another paragraph or two anyway. As such, while it may or may not fulfill the broad coverage criterion (I argue it does), it's certainly not "a long way from meeting" it (per quick fail criterion #1). Thus, I would like to ask you to reconsider this decision. Daß Wölf 00:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:GVF: A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points. Unfortunately, I don't think the main points have been met and I don't feel comfortable passing such narrow coverage. The good thing is that I am not the sole arbiter of good articles. If you still feel that you have covered everything that one can reasonably cover then feel free to renominate it or I can ask for a second opinion. Again thank you for your hard work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I hope I didn't come on too strong, but getting quick failed after three months of waiting, deservedly or not, is quite disheartening. I would prefer to hear a second opinion. Daß Wölf 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have requested a second opinion. This is one case, where I truly wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Good luck!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I tend to err on the side of @TriiipleThreat: in terms of the article needing slight expansion, but merely slight. The article overall reads very well, but there are some elements that could be added to expand or better organize information. One thing I think could be changed is the "Production and release history" section, which I feel would better serve the article if broken into two separate sections, as the production and the film's release are two very different things. That said, depending on the film, sometimes there is not enough information to warrant that. I don't know if that is the case with this film, but it is a frequent problem. Also, in the lead, it is noted that "The Hunted was released on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray" but there is no mention of who/what company released it, or when—it's minor things like that that I think would make a difference. Also, this may just be a personal stylistic preference, but for film articles I tend to think that there should be a separate section for home media (DVD, Blu-ray, etc.) as it is different from a theatrical release, especially as DVDs and Blu-rays receive updates, new editions, etc.; it is easier to follow in my opinion. That said, if the film has a short home media release history, it may not be necessary. --Drown Soda (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Drown Soda, sorry for the wait, I managed to miss this on my watchlist. I've added the distribution companies and separated Production and Release, although they're both still pretty short; I felt having such short sections would impede the flow. As for home media, I'm not sure what else can be added. I could list all the extras, but I think that would be violating WP:UNDUE, as there are probably a lot of different language DVD & VHS releases that would be hard to track down. Daß Wölf 01:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The main thing that feels missing to me is the lack of production history, casting, and the like. We have filming for the production section and that's basically it. I'm not asking for paragraphs upon paragraphs there, but is there really nothing out there in regards to development or casting? It's a little hard to believe to me. Wizardman 15:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Lawton wrote the script to this before some of his other works [1], which might be worth a mention. Not much there but even bits of info like that would go a long way. Wizardman 15:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I've added it. I agree, but I'm having a hard time extracting information online about this film. I also scoured a bunch of Lawton's interviews available online, but mentions of The Hunted are few and far between. Daß Wölf 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything harmful with citing home media versions of this movie as a reference as TriiipleThreat would say, considering a lot of articles I've read here (whether GA or FA) have used it as a reference. If you have a DVD/Blu-ray of this movie (legit, that is), perhaps you could cite its "production notes" featurette to expand the production section. Please take into account that I don't advice you to purchase it for the sake of this GA entry – clearly that's up to you. I'm as shocked as Wizardman to find out that there's not much about this film online, but I laud you for your work on this article. Best of luck going forward. Bluesphere 06:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I rented the DVD back when I was writing the article and I did cite the featurette, but it was pretty bare-bones, about 5-6 on-screen pages in huge letters, and most of it was actor bios and similar fluff. Daß Wölf 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
2nd opinion comment If you have made an honest attempt to find sources and no one else can find any either then I am personally of the opinion that some leeway should be given. I do understand where everyone is coming from, but I think there is enough there to pass this article on the broad criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @TriiipleThreat: I think we have enough opinions (thank you all :) ). I'd like to end this review and I'm willing to go with what you decide. Daß Wölf 18:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If it is of the opinion of my fellow editors that Daß's good faith efforts are satisfactory enough to pass this article then I will gladly lend my support.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Procedural note. This assessment is 6 months in the queue. It appears that Triiiple and Aircorn are in agreement on "Broad" here if Triiiple wishes to pass it. Otherwise, it may be time to allow someone else to renominate the article if or when further reliable sources are needed or become available. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: If you can address my other concerns, particularly the unreferenced cast section, I will go ahead and pass this article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
TriiipleThreat, I've addressed your points to the best of my knowledge. I can't help much with informal language in the plot as English is not my first language, so it's a bit hard for me to tell which phrase is a cliché. Please let me know if I missed anything (the hardest writing to proofread is one's own). I've also referenced the cast, although I really do not see the point of doing so in a 22-year-old film which received a wide release in theatres, as well as several home media releases. Did you have something else in mind here? Daß Wölf 00:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: I was mostly referring to the unreferenced cast section that you appeared to have addressed. However, we should always use WP:THIRDPARTY sources over WP:PRIMARY sources when we can. After a very quick google search, I found this.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Done (ping). Daß Wölf 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Continuing from article history:  The fact that Gone with the Wind, a GA, doesn't name actors in plot section, goes to show that this is optional. However, the actors are named in plot sections of countless movies, many of which have passed GA and FA reviews and some of which (including this one) have been brought to that status by me. Moreover, I think it benefits the readers by making it easier for them to form a mental picture of what's going on in the film, and to ease matching smaller roles with the corresponding actors without having to scroll back and forth between plot and cast sections. In films with prominent actors playing roles with unmemorable names, this really helps me when reading, as I'm sure it does a lot of people, which is why I've included it here. Daß Wölf 02:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Many websites have this movie down as a 1994 movie. Any explanation as to why? Without so much as a mention of this issue it's hard to confidently assume it's a 1995 movie. People turn to Wikipedia to check what's the accurate year, but without any mention in the Talk page people can't be confident our version is right... 86.148.254.58 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be that they're putting 1994 because that's the year it was made, however it's the date a film is released that determines what year it is given. The original U.S. release date was February 24, 1995. More release dates can be found here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113360/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_infChanbara (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It might be confusion with https://www.worldcat.org/title/hunted/oclc/34218547 -- the most prominent site listing this film as released in 1994 is Rotten Tomatoes, which already did a hack job with the film's reviews. Daß Wölf 19:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)