Talk:Hitman (2007 film)

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

So, who's playing 47?[edit]

Olyphant or Statham? BeeTh 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's Olyphant. -jtp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.197.54.136 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It's Olyphant. A vandal changed Olyphant to Statham. I've fixed it since. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to Vin Diesel starring in it? I was looking forward to him... he'd play the perfect Agent 47. DurotarLord 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He had another project, Babylon A.D., as well as Hannibal the Conqueror to direct. I'll see if I can find a source as to why Vin Diesel moved on from Hitman. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a shame, if I do say so, myself. Diesel could've saved the movie. He did well in A Man Apart, despite what critics say, and made me think "Wow, he could pull it off." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.244.82 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

Is it Jesper Kyd the one? --ΛэтєяиuS 09:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across any information about the composer. This will probably be a film that will add its musical score in the post-production stage, and filming is going on right now. I keep a pretty close eye on production news for this film, so if his name comes up, I'll add it in. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Jesper Kyd is the composer for at least one of the Hitman game's soundtracks. While it's possible they'd use some of his works from the game in the film, it's unlikely that they'd use *only* his works, so the answer is probably no, Kyd's soundtrack is probably not equatable to the movie soundtrack. Ham Pastrami 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further FYI, he composed ALL of the Hitman Soundtracks, although i doubt he'll do the movie. DurinsBane87 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an attributable source for the film's composer can be provided (and I would say such information would be available during the film's post-production process, when scoring usually takes place), then we can include the correct composer. No need to speculate here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first picture of Hitman[edit]

should we upload the picture from this link?! - http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070610e.php - RVDDP2501 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a picture on a French blog "official" sounds a little bit strong. Let's wait to see if the picture is more widespread among more prominent websites. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception?[edit]

Is there any wikipedia acceptable way to say that reception to the trailer and 'blurb' of the movie has been universally negative? Because as far as I can see, it has been... Geshpenst 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if such information is really encyclopedic. The film will come out soon enough, so it's not useful to have trailer reviews. Instead, advance reviews from reliable sources (when screenings take place) would be more appropriate. For all we know, it could have been a poor representation of the end product. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the negativity towards the movie is due to the casting more than anything (past and present).--NeF 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. Everyone I have talked to about it hates it because all reports show it to have been shamelessly hollywoodised into a cheap action flick, which is pretty much the antithesis of the game's spirit. OHISAY —Preceding comment was added at 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent heard anything like that, and regardless, unless you have sources, it doesnt matter. DurinsBane87 04:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources or not, important reasons for poor reviews in which the article glaringly lacks have been put to the test and sources should be found as to exactly why Hitman failed so miserably despite what I recall to be a very good script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.244.82 (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poster[edit]

I posted the sweet new poster that was released. DP08 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitman Series Box[edit]

Is it appropriate to add the Hitman Series Box(Below) to the Article and Update it to where it also includes the movie in the box?

--Mithos90 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've edited it to include the film, and I'll put the template in the film article. Thanks for the heads-up! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About to change the Box name from (Hitman Video Games) To the (Hitman Universe or Hitman Series) So the some people would not get confused on why the film is in a Videogame Box --Mithos90 05:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

Is it true that this film was severely edited and censored because either Fox or the MPAA or both felt it was too violent to be released? If so, how sad it is that this piece of art should be subjected to the dominion of censorship. =[ I mention this because it would be a worthy addition to the main article to mention that the film was severely censored and go into details about the director losing his job, etc. 72.49.198.90 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Anon[reply]

Yep, it was cut around 90 seconds. However it has been released uncut now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was far more than 90 seconds cut. You're looking at more than 10 DEFINITE minutes cut, possibly 15-20 minutes though. It wasn't "too violent", they just wanted it to be more suitable for everyone, so they cut violence and shortened scenes (not to mention the re-shoots). The Unrated cut is still far from the original movie. (92.12.166.240 (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Headlines[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Review Objectivity[edit]

The Rotten Review site did absolutely nothing but tear the movie apart. The reviews posted in the reception part of the page are completely negative. I think it'd be fair to the film not to only contain sites which have negative reviews, but also sites that have positive reviews. For example, Box Office Mojo reviewers gave the film a B-, with 88 reviews. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hitman07.htm

The Gross has been going up steady due to the word of mouth effect as well, says the box office figures atleast. Give the reviews some objectivity for neutrality's sake. TheJoak (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes are from professional film critics. The ratings at Box Office Mojo are from readers of that website. I personally don't have anything against mentioning reader ratings, but the style guide for films discourages it so it's unlikely that information would stay in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the style guide for films is in need of an amendment if the word of the people is to be ignored in its name. Withholding reviews by those who don't review movies as a profession makes Wikipedia appear both discriminative and makes it less informative as an encyclopedia. Chronus Valtiel (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film isn't that bad though from what I've heard from many people, and the reviews listed don't paint a pretty picture. I think it'd be great if we could atleast add one more source to the article. TheJoak (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel footage in Hitman[edit]

The very beginning of Hitman consists of scenes of hitmen being trained as children. Most of these are stock footage from Dark Angel. This might be something to add to a trivia section. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid trivia sections are discouraged for some foolish reason or another. It is sad, really. This site is starting to feel more and more needlessly restricted. Chronus Valtiel (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came here wondering if there was any reason for using the Dark Angel footage, and to see if there was a source sited that said this is in fact true, or discussed anything else about the decision to use this footage. I was once a DA fan and was startled to see something so strikingly familiar when I didn't expect it at all. It certianly looks like the same footage. I wondered if it was copied, or the idea borrowed. I was very disapointed to find the only mention of Dark Angel here on the talk page. Wiki is usually very thoural and an excellent place to check these kinds of facts and claims, with properly cited sources. What a shame.
Yeah, I thought that they'd at least mention it. It was referenced on the 'video games to movies' page. 58.107.134.43 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no source that can be cited, it is obvious the Dark Angel footage was used. It is equally obvious why it was used as evidenced in other parts of the wiki entry when it talked about the varying issues with production. When you take into account both properties are owned by Fox and those troubles previously cited as fact, it is obvious what happened.

- I am glad I am not the only one who noticed that some of the Mantacor Footage from Dark angel was used. Even the escape scene. Still with that knowledge how come the movie synopsis says "boys" when we all know it was not just boys trained otherwise Jess Alba's character would never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.129.84 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

average reception by viewers[edit]

I feel that I should point out the major discrepancy between the professional review listings on Rotten Tomatoes, and the user ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. Whereas the average user on both sites gave the movie a rating of around 6.6/10: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hitman/reviews_users.php, http://imdb.com/title/tt0465494/ratings, the average among professional critics was a paltry 3.9/10: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hitman/?critic=creamcrop. It seems like that level of disagreement between viewers and critics should be mentioned, given that the note on the end of the article mentions its poor reception by the critics and in particular references Rotten Tomatoes as a source. 4.246.120.205 (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should also be noted that most professional critics are unlikely to have actually played the games this movie was based on and as such wont really understand that what they may think is dull or not "Hollywood" enough for them is how the film should be according to the game series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.148.142 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum. ---Hemisemidemiquaver (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it should be mentioned that the average person gave the film a "B" on Yahoo! Movies. http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809845244/info —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFILM#Reception indicates ratings like IMDb's star ratings (basically, user ratings) don't qualify. This is because such ratings are susceptible to votestacking -- fan can easily swarm a specific rating and rate it highly, hence the discrepancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, user voted ratings are much better then some overpaid assholes in hollywood dissing movies their paid to diss. I think it would only be fair to the movie to post another source of rating, as MOST sites give average ratings yet the sites posted give nothing but horrible reviews. I think theres a bit of bias in this article. TheJoak (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User ratings aren't permitted because of the nature by which they can be manipulated. With sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, there are independent reviews compiled to generate the ratings, which in this case have been negative. This is in opposition to user ratings, which can easily be votestacked. Take a look at this. The only objective way to judge non-critic reaction would be by box office performance supplemented by bona fide measurements of the demographics that went to the showings. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the box office has been talking for this film, its already done 21 million (BoxOfficeMojo), and it did 3 million on Sunday. These numbers do speak how word of mouth is effecting the attendance of the movie. Someone needs to incorporate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoak (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fleshed out the box office performance based on information from Box Office Mojo, but there's nothing as far as I can tell at this point. We need to verify that $3 million on Sunday was due to word of mouth -- we can't point at the numbers and declare that as the primary reason for the one-day gross. If you can find any reliable sources providing an analysis of how Hitman has performed with regular audiences, we can incorporate that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

The trivia that's being added into the article is not notable and is unintegratable, at least at this stage. Attempting to hide it in the plot section doesn't work very well when the entire plot itself is only a few sentences. The trivia is nearly half of the plot section. DurinsBane87 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about excluding the trivial passage in question. There's no place for it in the article at the moment. Many things can be seen in a film, and this particular item doesn't fit into a plot summary. If there was a Production section as well as a citation with the director or the star talking about including this Easter egg as a nod toward video gamers, that would be better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Platform 9" scene, supposedly happening in Saint-Petersburg was in fact shot at the Gare Montparnasse in Paris (see Media:Gare Montparnasse TGV interior DSC08897.jpg). -- Nicolas.cuissard (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

I've written a brief synopsis, so as not to conflict with wiki policies concerning over-detailed summaries. I integrated two bits of trivia that were otherwise being deleted, per WP:TRIVIA. So that whole debate can end. I'm surprised no one did this earlier. Buspar 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the expansion to the Plot section is appreciated, the indiscriminate bit still does not have any bearing on the plot. It's a little Easter egg that's not essential to the unfolding of the story, and it unfortunately stands out. See my suggestion above -- it would need some independent recognition. Otherwise, it'd be OK to list every kind of minor detail -- type of weaponry, type of vehicle, type of clothing, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more objective way of looking at it -- the Spider-Man films have all had a cameo with Stan Lee, but since he is not a part of the films' storylines, it's not relevant to include his scenes as part of the summary. I think it'd be best to find independent support that this particular observation is worth noting in a real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur the postmodern joke about children playing a Hitman game is a trivial. Alientraveller 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely trivial in the plot section, given that him passing some kids playing the game in no way affects the plot as a whole. Plot sections should summarize the events of the plot, not hand out specific details which amount to minutia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding comment was added at 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that integrating trivia into the synopsis complies with WP:TRIVIA and is also done in other movie articles. I suggest you read the policy more closely and edit more movie articles, as you clearly don't know the proper approach. 136.142.101.135 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The first says that you are the only one bargaining for its inclusion, where 4 editors have disagreed. The second says that it has no meaning, regardless of verifiability. It adds nothing to the plot itself. Also, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies to other articles in discussions of notability. This is a discussion of content within an article. If other articles of the same type (i.e. other video game-based movie articles) have similar material, it becomes a matter of standardizing article style, not whether the article should exist. So 136.142.101.135's point is valid. And looking at the edit history of the article, there are at least 4 editors supporting the inclusion of this material (counting myself, 136.142.101.135, and two others I can spot off hand). So consensus is NOT in your favor, since it's a split. Buspar (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intergarating it means placing in the prose of the article in a way that makes sense. Having that statment just sitting at the end of the plot section is not integrating it. DurinsBane87 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Smith[edit]

That Agent Smith is a character from the video games is important and not indiscriminate, as it relates to the connection of the movie and video games and is keeping with the standard of other video game-based movies. I've included it back in on the Cast section, along with the actor who plays him. Buspar (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Connection to Games" Section[edit]

Why doesn't this page have a "Connection to Games" section?

I think it is a very essential part of any article that concerns a film based on a video-game. Someone ought to get around to making one. -TheHande (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles are considered Good or Featured Articles, so they're not really shining examples. If you want to include connections to the video games, it's best to cite independent perspectives to report important information only. For example, it wouldn't be appropriate to make comparisons between the video game Agent 47's face and Olyphant's face in the film. Using independent sourcing helps determine which connections are relevant to put in an encyclopedic article, otherwise there can be limitless comparisons and contrasts between the source material and its adaptation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a featured article either but:

Notable enough and there doesn't appear to be any opposition to it. Undoubtedly some of the articles are over-doing it when it comes to making comparison lists, but any major thematical and cinematic similarities in my view are approapriate to point out. -TheHande (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but how do you know what thematic or cinematic similarities are major enough to point out? How does it not lead to minor comparisons? It's a matter of synthesis to do that. What seems major to you may seem minor to someone else, and you can argue in circles based on subjective arguments. That's why independent and verifiable coverage from reliable sources works -- they make the arguments of "A and B, therefore C" instead of us bystanders. I've written Writing sections that compare/contrast from their source material, and while not exactly the same thing, the idea still applies. Some examples: Fight Club (film)#Writing, Road to Perdition#Writing, The Seeker (film)#Writing. For this particular film, there are headlines I've provided above, and I can provide more from my Google Alerts. Examples you can use: here: "Dougray is this Interpol agent who is that kind of classic one step ahead of everybody, two steps behind Agent 47. And he's a pleasure. He's very, very good. I think we did a really great job of trying to establish this connection between these two men in a way that I think is a bit different than the game. From what I understand, in the game the guy's a bit bumbling, inept. And I think in the movie we tried to strengthen his character because by strengthening his character we kind of strengthen 47," or this: "To that end, Gens and screenwriter Skip Woods retained much of the game’s mythology and imagery, including 47’s elaborate weaponry, sartorial choices, and trademark fleur-de-lis... The psychological ambiguity and the mystery of the Hitman are still there – where he comes from, what kind of education he received to develop his impressive skills." These details are available from someone else besides you and me, and the fact it does makes it more incontrovertible. For The Godfather, I've argued there before, and I think that the article doesn't warrant such a section. It's much, much more notable for other aspects, and I don't think it's universally useful to readers to say "This happened in that source material, but that didn't happen in the adaptation" or vice versa with no real-world context. I think that the appeal of such sections is the ease of it -- film articles, especially production details, aren't easy to put together, and the majority of edits at new film articles are to fine-tune the Plot section -- because they just saw it. A small pool of these people have seen the film and are familiar with the source material, so they want to communicate that to others in that pool. For those not familiar at all, it can seem, "OK, so this fanboy's played the games and watched the film, so he decided to add a detail that he thought was cool"? Real-world context is what Wikipedia is about, so plot details exist to support the background (see WP:PLOT). Going back to Hitman, I can provide more headlines to help out, if you're interested in taking this approach. If you still have qualms about it, let me know. And sorry for the long message. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"47" yada yada[edit]

Note how besides the first and last paragraphs in the plot section of the entry, each paragraph begins with '47'. Please find a way to change that, it looks worse then someone starting every sentence in an essay with the word 'the'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.111.206 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why does someone keep deleting "conecction to game section"[edit]

I wrote a section about conections to the game series, but it was taken down, i ntice in the histery that i wasnt the first to do this...why are these sections repeatily taken down?

What was Hitman's budget?[edit]

Chad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.139.5 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally rumored to be around the $70 million mark. But it was supposedly cut by Fox and 'Variety' stated it ended up under $20 million. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.166.240 (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs/Mistakes in the Film[edit]

During the fight-scene at the station, after agent 47 kicks the last adversary through the door, he pulls out a sword from the hand of one of the dead men. The sword is shown to be covered in blood, as is expected. However, when he walks through the door to finish off the last adversary, both the swords in his hands are clean and do not have any blood on them.

Also if you noticed when he was in the Hotel, he stuck his hand in the Ice box (putting the Ballers there), and the Ice Box was on the Left side of the hallway. However when they show him grabbing the ballers from the Ice box, its on the Right Side of the hallway and scenery has completely changed.
DegenerationX219 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of mistakes in scenes in "St. Petersburg".

-Agent's going on Petersburg's street to meet Nika, then he appears suddenly on Lubyanka square in Moscow where Audi's parking to pick up girl, and the hext scene - they are all in St. Petersburg again.
-Agent enters the Moskovsky train station (building)(and the camera shows Kievsky train station in Moscow) but the scene on platform was shoot on Finnsky train station.( so,we have 3 train stations in 2 cities summary )
-There is no Catholic church in the center of St. Petersburg, only eastern orthodox with domed (like onions) picks.
-There is no train from Istanbul to Moscow.
-Russia does not share a border with Turkey. but in the car scene it says Russia-Turkey border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.118.129 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-And there are a lot of dummy signs like 'peer' instead of 'beer' or 'fsb' is written wrong with reversed 'C' on police guy's back. Except that there is no uniform for FSB.

When the Mi-24 gunship opens fire, you can clearly see muzzle flashes from both the onboard cannon located in the front, as well as from positions under its wings. In a later shot, just before the helicopter turns away, you see that there are only ATGM rails and rocket pods (presumably UB32) under the wings, no machineguns or cannons.

Financial success?[edit]

I wonder if this movie could be considered a financial success. I can not say that this is a box office bomb (depending on how much the budget is - which is yet to be posted here) but looking at the sales of the domestic market, this movie is definitely way out of the consideration of a success. Pboy2k5 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Angel?[edit]

The reference to the Dark Angel footage needs a citation. Is this acknowledged on the DVD anywhere? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find anything to support it and I'm leaning toward deleting the statement. Can anyone verify it? 23skidoo (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The footage is most certainly from dark angel. I can't find anthing verifying it, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.255.14 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      • Yes, I have a copy of the Dark Angel TV-DVD set, and those are the same footage from it. I believe they should give credit or referance to Dark Angel. yajaec —Preceding comment was added at 10:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Clone or Not to Clone[edit]

This line bugs me: "This detail was changed when the train station sequence was re-shot, as actors of mixed races were cast for the extra assassins, and so could not be clones."

The reason it bugs me is because the assassins in the game were cloned from multiple hosts, I believe 7 or 8. As such, there's nothing to say that everybody in that sequence couldn't be a clone - this strikes me as original research and/or unpublished synthesis. --Bishop2 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

47 WAS made from 5 different 'fathers'. They all served as donators for their DNA, which went into one individual. However 47 was the only truly successful clone of them all, the 'perfect' clone. (They others all looked like 47, as can be seen in the first game, which shows his creator releasing 'Agent 48s, all of which look like 47). Xavier Gens had said he intended them to be clones, I have heard the original opening and have read it in the script, so this detail of who he is was likely changed to account for their casting. If it wasn't that, it was still changed when they re-shot the movie, because the original opening said nothing of it. Words from the Director's mouth, the script, which was shot almost exactly (and can be seen in the deleted scenes, as it was cut down, hence the changes made) and the original audio from the opening are all the proof I think anyone needs to show he WAS a clone until Fox re-shot the movie. There is only 1 assassin in the original train sequence, so there was no need to change his origins in the original movie. (92.12.166.240 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hitman video game in hotel scene[edit]

the scene where he jumps of the balcony, he lands in another hotelroom with 2 kids playing hitman: blood money (47 holding the dragunov), anyone else noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbadon3210 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Maria in trailer[edit]

Which version was used in the preview/teaser trailer?--75.82.68.118 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer music controversy - section removed[edit]

I've taken out a short section about some sort of dispute over the music used in the film's trailer. This is because I believe the section raises more questions than it answers, because it reads confusingly, is uncited, and includes a lot of words that make me believe it's speculative:

"Q-factory was tapped to produce a piece of music for the TV spots of the movie. Apparently it was not a piece that the group originally composed but was instead a revised version of another song, possibly Requiem for a Tower, movement 4. Following a small bit of controversy the piece of music was never released leaving many fans of the music extremely frustrated. Of course many artists are much more concerned with preserving what they perceive to be 'artistic integrity' than they are with the actual integrity of producing and sharing art so no compromise is likely to be reached and the music will likely go unreleased. Q-factory's website still advertises that they produced a piece for the TV spots but it is one of very few pieces not available on the site for sampling. The piece can still be heard on the movies official website."

First, who or what is Q-factory? Did they produce the music? Why 'apparently'? Do we have the information or not? Why 'possibly' Requiem For A Tower? Was it or wasn't it this piece? What qualifies as a 'small bit' of controversy? Were fans really 'extremely frustrated' that the music wasn't released, or just mildly annoyed? I'm always dubious about any statement that begins 'of course', and in this case the statement seems to be making a value judgement about artists' priorities, which doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. I noticed a couple of occurrences of 'likely' in there as well: do we know, or don't we? Why are we specifically interested in pieces being available 'for sampling'?

I realise many of these questions probably sound fairly petty, but taken together they give the section a very conversational style and suggest that it has been written by someone with a particular point of view on the issue. The section serves more as commentary than neutral explanation, and I'd also question whether a dispute over a bit of unreleased music that was never used in the movie's trailer is really noteworthy enough to be included here. - Laterensis (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Casting[edit]

Is there any reason why they didn't just cast David Bateson for the part of Agent 47? It would have made more sense considering the character's looks are based on him, he does the voice over for the video game, is an actor, and knows the character inside and out. Surely he'd have been perfect?--92.1.53.107 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reference #22[edit]

Reference #22 leads to a construction website. I'm not sure if this is spam or just an incorrect link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.150.136.77 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hitman (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hitman (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hitman (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hitman (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hitman_(2007_film)&oldid=1207561624"