Talk:The Green Hornet (2011 film)

message: * The Green Hornet at Superhero Hype!
* The Green Hornet at IGN (Video review)
* 
* 
* 
* 
Resources to use. Wildroot (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations for use

message: 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)
thread_title: FYI

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Parallel article 

message: 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)
replies: text: Never mind! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date change and 3D 

message: 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)
thread_title: Images?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Lone Ranger's grand-nephew 

message: Here are some references about the recent weekend's box office:
*'Hornet' buzzes over holiday B.O., variety.com (if you cannot see the page, use WebCite to archive the page and thus view it)
*'Green Hornet' Tops Soft Weekend Box Office With $34 Million, hollywoodreporter.com (should implement before it becomes subscription-only)
*'Green Hornet' Kicks Into Top Gear Over MLK Weekend, boxofficemojo.com
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)
thread_title:  Box office references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creative differences 

message: 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)
thread_title: Plot length

message: 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:
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)
thread_title: LA Times Building?

message: 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)
thread_title: Just watched the blu-ray

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Plot vio

message: 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)
replies: text: "Deuteragonist" and "tritagonist" seem to be a version of peacocking. - J Greb (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  What the hell are "deuteragonist" and "tritagonist"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sequel plans scrapped 

message: "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)
thread_title: Descriptor in lead

message: 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)
thread_title: Poster

message: 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)
thread_title: "Superhero film"