Talk:Hancock (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Superhero?

This guys sounds more like a...super-anti-hero to me. Lightblade (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll find out when it comes out. In the meantime, though, try not to initiate general discussion on talk pages. Per talk page guidelines, discussion is meant for the improvement of the respective article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should superpowers be mentioned?

Like flight and super strength that was evident in the trailer? And added onto when the film comes out.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The "Release" section is currently marked with the {{weasel}} template with two apparent reasons: redundant information and sounding like a press release. The only redundant information that exists in the article is the title change, and it is repeated twice for a reason. In the "Production" section, the title change is reflected as a chronological part of the filmmaking process, and in the "Release" section, the title change is reflected as part of the marketing process. Secondly, referring to the passage as sounding like a press release seems to suggest that this passage has favorable wording for the studio. Mentions of impromptu filmmakers, inability to get a desired rating, elements like intoxication and statutory rape are not words that a studio would advertise like in a press release. This passage is summarized from the New York Times article that explored this, and the relevant passages are compared below:

Passage Quote
Director Peter Berg and writer-producer Akiva Goldsman have been perceived to push creative boundaries with their work in cinema, the latest instance being Hancock. The New York Times reported, "By their own account they keep pushing an increasingly corporate entertainment industry to do what scares it a little — and not just stick to a summerful of sequels and animated sure shots." "Along with, among others, Michael Mann, one of the producers of Hancock, and James Lassiter, Mr. Smith’s longtime producing partner, the two (Berg and Goldsman) belong to what Mr. Goldsman likes to call a loose collective of like-minded filmmakers. By their own account they keep pushing an increasingly corporate entertainment industry to do what scares it a little — and not just stick to a summerful of sequels and animated sure shots."
Hancock had been reviewed by the Motion Picture Association of America twice and has both times received an R rating instead of the preferred PG-13 rating to target broader audiences. "As of mid-April, however, it had been twice to the ratings board and tagged each time with an R, not acceptable for a movie that must ultimately be rated PG-13 to reach its intended broad audience."
Questionable elements included Smith's character drinking in front of a 17-year-old and the character flying under the influence of alcohol. "The filmmakers, for instance, long ago conceded that their hero should not get drunk with a 12-year-old. But their concession was a bargaining chip, aimed at keeping a similar situation with a 17-year-old in the final version, which was still weeks from being locked as Mr. Berg spoke in April. Another touchy area, Mr. Berg said, involved flying, never mind driving, under the influence."
One element that has been removed from the film to appeal to the MPAA was statutory rape. "'We had statutory rape up until three weeks ago,' Mr. Berg said, describing just one of the elements that has turned Hancock into an exercise in brinkmanship."
With such elements, studio executives only became comfortable with Hancock when the marketing approach focused on action and humor. Berg noted, "The ad campaign for this movie is much friendlier than the film." "By Mr. Berg's lights the executives became comfortable with the film only recently. That occurred when they settled on a marketing approach that played down drama in favor of action and humor. In one of the trailer’s highlights Mr. Smith heaves a beached whale out to sea and smashes a sailboat. 'The ad campaign for this movie is much friendlier than the film,' Mr. Berg noted."

I am not sure what else would be questionable under this section, unless the mention of the mobile game is an issue. I would be fine with its removal, but film articles can have coverage about their marketing, such as The Dark Knight (film)#Marketing. With these reasons and no clear issue that warrants such tagging, I am removing the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When I first read the section the only thing that cause me as potentially "weasely" was the first sentence. But then I realized that the entire section was sourced to the NY Times and I checked that out and everything virtually corresponded precisely to what was stated there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As a whole, I don't see any weaseling in the section. I am, however, confused by the first two sentences. Their readability is a bit off, and I can't clearly see how they connect to the film. I don't think removing them would hurt the article, and maybe later it can be mentioned in the production section rather than release, as it seems to speak more to how the film was made. There is also an odd jump from MPAA's ratings to suddenly noting the studio execs became comfortable. Nothing before that really notes that they were uncomfortable with the film. Out of curiosity, since MPAA continues to rate it at R, will they putting back in the removed scene? Minor nitpick, but shouldn't "Sony Pictures Television have" be "Sony Pictures Television has"? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. What I was trying to aim for with the first two sentences is to show how Berg and Goldsman are testing their boundaries with their creation, Hancock. It was a summary of a lot more said by The New York Times. Are you able to read the passages? Maybe we could adjust the wording to make better sense. Also, if the whole paragraph doesn't flow well, I apologize. It was meant to be a paragraph about fine-tuning the presentation of the film. Maybe we could break it up into two paragraphs or reword with better transitions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The first two sentences, I can read, but they don't make much sense to me. I think a split in the paragraph might be good for the MPAA versus the studio execs, or alternatively adjust the transitions a bit to first show they were uncomfortable (and maybe why? MPAA or something else)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see where the concerns about weasel words enter. The awkwardness in the first two sentences results from passive voice, which could be perceived as obscuring what appears to be the self-referential nature of the characterization of the four. Its wording gives the impression that a third party is "perceiving" the boundary-pushing of the four, therefore giving it some sort of objective legitimacy; however, the "perception" actually is being made by the four if only the quoted passage is considered. They, not someone else, describe themselves as "pushing [the] industry to do what scares it a little." The newspaper quote does refer to other parties ("among others"), but it's nebulous, we don't know who else besides the four thinks that. Part of the problem lies in that Erik is actually characterizing opinions stated a number of times in the article, not just by the article's author, but by studio executives; but the quoted passage doesn't adequately convey that. Perhaps if active voice is used along with the identity of the perception holder: Perceived as "consummate insiders with just enough of the outsider about them to keep the Hollywood system on edge", Peter Berg and Avika Goldsman continue to push the movie industry "one step beyond its safety zone" with their production of Hancock. Amy Pascal, Sony's co-chairwoman, acknowledges that the production breaks some ground: "It’s scary in that it goes farther than we’ve gone before." If desired, paraphrasing the first two quotes will accurately generalize the sentiments, but I would leave the Pascal quote in to validate Hanclock's inclusion in the characterization and legitimize that characterization.
Also, reword the other passages. (1) Hancock received R ratings the two times it has been reviewed by the Motion Picture Association of America, instead of the preferred PG-13, which is preferred for targeting broader audiences. (2) One story element involving statutory rape was removed from the film to appease the MPAA.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the analysis, Jim. I was probably too immersed in the subject matter of the article to realize it may not make sense to people who are looking at it for the first time. I like your suggestion of the active voice as well as the changes to the ensuing sentences. What about transitions, since AnmaFinotera felt it jumped from the MPAA rating to the marketing? I may not be able to make changes today as I'm about to embark on a 10-hour road trip today (and 7 more hours tomorrow), but I appreciate the feedback! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I tagged the section as featuring weasel words is because you are reproducing opinions, not facts. The fact that the New York Times printed those opinions does not make them facts. I don't really see any evidence that Peter Berg and Akiva Goldsman are known outside the Times article for pushing boundaries, only that they consider themselves to be boundary pushers. The section contains the following new factual information:
    • Hancock is an original concept in "a summerful of sequels and animated sure shots."
    • "Hancock had been reviewed by the Motion Picture Association of America twice and has both times received an R rating instead of the makers' preferred PG-13 rating to target broader audiences."
    • "Questionable elements included Smith's character drinking in front of a 17-year-old and the character flying under the influence of alcohol. One element that has been removed from the film to appeal to the MPAA was statutory rape. With such elements, studio executives only became comfortable with Hancock when the marketing approach focused on action and humor. Berg" told the New York Times ", 'The ad campaign for this movie is much friendlier than the film.'"
    • Sony's marketing people wanted a less ambiguous title.
Other than not attributing the quote the New York Times, I don't have a problem with weasel words past the first two sentences. The only possible problem would be the extent that the section is sourced from one article, but considering the length of the paragraph I don't think it's a big deal. I appreciate the attempt to embue the article with more literary prose, but less utilitarian writing is at odds with the mission of an objective encyclopedia. The second paragraph isn't weaselly, it's just not clear. Did the marketing consultants have a problem with the Tonight, He Comes title or the current Hancock title? — Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
First of all, I've clarified that the consultants had an issue with Hancock and were trying to change it. Now, I'm not sure why it's not OK to add the perspective about Peter Berg and Akiva Goldsman. Are you seriously questioning integrity of The New York TImes in this regard? If we stuck to purely utilitarian writing, then we'd never know how anyone felt about anything. What did a film critic think of a particular film? How did people view Heath Ledger as an actor? You say that you "don't really see any evidence", and I assume you mean in the article. The problem with this is you are dissecting a fully reliable source as if it lacked credibility, which isn't the case. There needs to be mention about how Berg and Goldsman are testing their boundaries, even if we have to fine-tune the wording. Perhaps we can mention that The New York Times reported that directly and let the reader determine if that source's perspective is believable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik accurately characterized the statements made in the article; I only felt the wording in the WP article could have been better. And somehow I think arguing that The New York Times is not a credible and reliable source will be an uphill battle.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me make it clear that I'm not trying to tear down Erik's work on the section in its entirety. However, the opinion of a journalist -- even a journalist for the esteemed New York Times -- does not make the opinion any more of a fact. Peter Berg is an actor from Chicago Hope who as a director is responsible for the critical dud Very Bad Things and The Rundown, which did fine with critics but was about as safe as you can get with an action comedy. His most recent film, The Kingdom, took the contemporary Middle East setting and made a mediocre formulaic action film out of it. Akiva Goldsman may have won the Oscar for his A Beautiful Mind screenplay, but he's also the much reviled screenwriter behind the Schumacher Batman films, The Da Vinci Code and the big-screen Lost in Space.
Entertainment journalism isn't the same as mainstream news journalism; there's a lot of backscratching that occurs. Hollywood provides access to the big stars and productions that move papers, the newspaper provides publicity for the movie. Which isn't to say that the New York Times article is merely a PR piece; it's simply to say that the journalist is willing to let Berg and Goldsman indulge in patting themselves on the back. Since the New York Times article is the only one that pushes this angle, I guess I just disagree that the article here needs to "mention about how Berg and Goldsman are testing their boundaries". However, f the consensus disagrees, I won't drag out an editing war. As it was just rubbed me the wrong way. -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

Nememis?

In the traileres he seems to be battling a pyro supervillian. I think this should be included in the hancock page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlecrazy (talk • contribs) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Dont speculate on the plot in the discussion. Read the rules. Sigmarz (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hancock's origin

This clip [1] shown on Ellen reveals a significant part of Hancock's origin, including where he got his name. Unsure where to incorporate the information, though--plot? Character? -- Pennyforth (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording in Article...

Reading this article I noticed the line "Will Smith portrays an black alcoholic superhero...", does it need to be stated that he is black? MattyC3350 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unnecessary. Take it out. Tweisbach (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comedy...

Right in the first sentence it says the movie is a comedy...Really? It isn't sourced, so I figure y'all can help me here. It says it is a super hero movie, obviously it is, but I'm not too sure if it's under the comedy genre. --70.244.112.245 (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC):

I think going by what I have seen on the preview that it is basicly a comedy. or as they say Action Adventure/Comedy. I dont see no harm in having it under comedy untill the movie is released and more is given. MattyC3350 (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's my point right there. We can't call it a comedy without proof or a cite. Anyways I just saw a commercial for it and it didn't look like a comedy. And from what I think is wikipedia standards no cite no go, if it looks like a comedy that doesn't make it one because that's speculation... I think... either way i want proof.--SxeFluff (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct. One lil' giggle in a trailer doesn't make it a comedy. Since Hancock is a HERO, put it under, super-hero movie. (I.E. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc.) Skeletal_SLJCOAAATR (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDB has comedy as one of the movie's genres. Tweisbach (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

i thought it would be a comedy but i just saw it and calli ng this a comedy is like calling xmen a comedy or calling iron man a comedy(that movie had more comedy than this actually) the trailer makes it look like its all comedy but it gets very serious 69.220.1.137 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, reviews have expressed the sentiment that Hancock can't decide what it wants to be. Not sure how this particular issue could be resolved; perhaps see what some official listings label it? New York Times's overview lists it as comedy, action, and fantasy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We should go with superhero film, because that's what the story is about. Alientraveller (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast?

Should Daeg Faerch be listed in the first line with the poster-named stars for what is a bit part with minimal on screen time, regardless of the quality of performance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.62.169 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

i know by the time ive wrote this it'll be fixed but can someone fix the cast part it makes no sense. i would but i dont know what i should be putting exactly and someone will then have to change it still.Black6989 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Black6989

Thanks: done.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Production info

After finishing work on the film, Smith gave crew members gift cards for a Scientology personality test at any Church of Scientology centre as a wrap present.

  • Cashmore, Pete (June 21, 2008). "Will and disgrace: Is there any dirt at all to be found on Will Smith, the last action hero? Yes, says Pete Cashmore". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2008-06-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This info should remain in the article. It is factual and relevant, especially placed in the Production subsection. It is also only one sentence on the matter. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: actors give goodie-bags to production crew all the time as wrap presents, and the 'personality tests' were just one of many items in this particular set. So why does the Scientology link make this any more notable than those, other than the gossip angle? Steve T • C 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also argue that this detail is more reflective of Will Smith's characteristics than it is about the film. Is it a problem that this detail exists at his article but not here? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems that consensus is not to include this information and so I will go along with that. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
well, if one reads the article it is obvious that it relates to the latest movies with smith, especially hankock. however there is information that goes beyond this movie but as said before in general it relates to the movie ... for understanding this kind of hero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.127.214 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Critical reaction

Headlines to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the states... but this film is already out in the UK so shouldn't the page be changed...

82.3.171.147 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just watched the movie tonight. This page said the movie comes out on the 2nd but I saw it... on the 1st. And im in the US too? I looked on IMBD and Fandango and they both said it comes out on the 2nd? What is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.55.135 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You watched an "advanced screening." Although there was a lot of them, officially the film opened, July 2nd. Ehccheehcche (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this fits in but Theron's character description needs to be longer. do her powers include the creation of tornadoes or was that an accident/involuntary thing? 24.45.13.40 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)DDF

Headlines

For use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot too long?

As of July 2nd 8:16 a.m. EST, the "Plot" section for this movie seems ridiculously long, more like a detailed summary with unadvertised spoilers. The writing is poor, the detail of description if unnecessary, and organizationally it is a complete mess, as well as a playing ground for offensive edits. Does anyone second scratching the whole "Plot" section and replacing it with a concise description of the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.149.12 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Second. The length is ridiculous.
FiP Что вы думаете? 12:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I restored the original Premise section; the Plot section was far, far too long and could constitute a copyright violation with the excess amount of detail it had about the film. It should be rewritten to fit WP:FILMPLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot section seems just right to me (July 3 7:30 EST) Full plot with spoilers: that is the only reason I and others look up films and books on Wikipedia. Without a full plot, including spoilers, wikipedia would just be a less reliable, lower-quality version of widely available film reviews. D40 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)D40

CHaLfAsA1223 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC) The plot is poorly written, it doesn't stand up to wiki standards and needs to be redone.

There should be at least a warning that the plot contains the full story and thus is a complete spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.85.127.139 (talk • contribs) 04:56, July 14, 2008

Spoiler is not an encyclopedic term. Other film encylcopedias in print have a complete synopsis for each of their articles. They do not say SPOILER. Please do not treat an online encyclopedia to a lesser standard. MMetro (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot too short

The plot is way too short, and it is called 'premise' and not plot like other movie pages have. The plot needs to be longer (like what I submitted). The fact that he develops feeling's for Ray's wife doesn't matter, it was just the device used to reveal his powers because he has amnesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.129.117 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The plot section was ridiculously detailed, but WP:FILMPLOT says that you do not just delete it. Spoilers are expected at Wikipedia. If you want a spoiler-sensitive review, try IMDB or others. Suggested structure: one paragraph for intro fight, one paragraph saves PR guy and goes to house, one paragraph agrees and goes to prison, one paragraph gets called out and saves police, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.171.216 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Mostow

Mostow is the director of U-571, TERMINATOR 3 but HITCH was directed by Andy Tennant and I don't see Mostow anywhere near it. Citizenjamesford (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the citation, and there's no Hitch connection. I've removed the portion of the sentence. Thanks for pointing it out! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Amazing Stats!

Article currently says: To give a realistic appearance of superhero flight, Smith was often suspended by wires 2,000,000 feet above the ground and propelled at 5,000,000 miles per hour.

Amazing! I had no idea speeds like that were even possible... but maybe the fact that they apparently suspended Will Smith somewhere around Venus to accomplish it might have helped.

I think I'll change it back to *200* feet above ground and *50* mph like the article says. Guse (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.56.58 (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Is there a standard for qualifying the reviews in the Reception section? 36% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes seems like the reception should be considered poor or, at best "mixed." Any objection there? Mykll42 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen only poor reviews from cnn, foxnews... so I have no objection saying the reception is poor. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We've used a combination of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic cites for that paragraph. The latter provides the wording that the reception was "mixed", while the former provides the general consensus that the film "begins with promise, but suffers from a weak story and poor execution." Steve T • C 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that the person or people who did the reception section did a great job. Kudos on that. The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That would be Steve, who just left the comment above you. :) See two discussions down; we talked about how to formulate the section, and he implemented a lot of good changes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Other people when they're drunk either sensibly avoid Wikipedia, or if they don't, end up making a series of embarrassing edits that will one day come back to haunt them during that RFA. Me? I end up rewriting the critical reception section on the Hancock article. Rock and roll. Steve T • C 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion suggests that this movie is not up to normal Will Smith opening weekends. In reality, the movie is on pace to surpass $100 million, which is the largest opening to date for a Will Smith film, based on info from Box Office Mojo - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=willsmith.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.54.3 (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider the five-day opening weekend, though. It may not quite add up. We'll pull more box office performance articles by Monday or so and compile the information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler

When a movie is new (less than three weeks in release), a SPOILER ALERT at the top of the "Plot" section is needed. Cosmox (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)COSMOX

We don't include spoiler warnings on Wikipedia since we disclose full information about a film, past, present, and future. It's too tricky to determine the "newness" of a film -- is it new if it opened a month earlier in a non-English country? Is a DVD release new to people? These kinds of questions are better side-stepped, so just follow the section headings. The Plot section will disclose information about the film's plot with no real reason to believe that we'd stop short. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"We don't include spoiler warnings on Wikipedia" You used to. What changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.72.73 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a big fight about it, basically. One group of editors thought that readers should get a warning before they read the Plot section. Another group thought that a warning was unnecessary since a section heading like "Plot" was self-explanatory and a spoiler warning was redundant. No reason to believe that "Plot" would not disclose all the relevant information from a fictional work. After all, a body of text 700 words in size is going to give a lot away, as opposed to a short paragraph (which basically mentions the premise). I think we tend to limit film articles to such premise sections until the film is publicly released because then readers/editors can revise the Plot section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i think including in the character section charlize therons character should have more of a description, if u pay attention to the newest trailer it shows tornadoes and clearly states that only one other person knows his(hancocks) secret and then the camera scans over to charlize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenendy (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reaction (2)

I think that the article is mostly OK in regard to the Plot section, Cast section (further roles?), Production section, and most of the Release section. I think we should develop the Critical reaction subsection further, so I'd like to use this particular discussion to list and implement any useful reviews. Steve has generously helped reflect the general consensus of the reviews, so it would be a matter of using specific reviews to reflect as succinctly as possible each critic's opinion of the film. Reviews that appear in widely-circulated publications are most appropriate for a high-profile film like this; the majority of Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics would be a good pool of reviews to draw upon. Any dialogue about shaping the Critical reaction subsection can take place here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see more than 3 critics in the section. Right now, the section is placing undue weight on three critics' opinion. Those opinions need to be trimmed down, and more critical reception brought in for a more neutral article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole... while the detailed coverage of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter worked earlier when there were very few reviews, we now have more than enough. Another possibility is to incorporate reviews from the UK -- after all, the film was released there the same weekend. Here are a few: [2], [3], and [4]. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Five critics. I attempted to be careful when creating those paragraphs and chose critical reactions which seemed to reflect the general consensus about the film. Two (McCarthy of Variety and Farber of The Hollywood Reporter) both have the largest sections because what they said did indeed chime with the majority of the others. For balance, in the third paragraph I added short sections from Ebert and Dargis highlighting what they praised about the film. The last, Hunter, was included because he added an interesting analysis that few others had. This last paragraph is shorter because most of the remaining information in their reviews would duplicate what McCarthy and Farber said. Steve T • C 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, is it worth keeping the bit about Last Action Hero? It seems like it would have an expired flavor when the weekend is over. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point, I ummed and ahhhed a little over that one, probably including it more out of a desire to bulk the section up a little. I'll trim it along with the other stuff. Steve T • C 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As it stands right now, can either of you (or anyone else for that matter) point out any other bits which might come across as a little POV? If no-one else does so, I'll try to add a couple of reviews from other countries later (I actually spent a little while this morning looking for one from one of the large-circulation Australian papers to no avail). But as I say, the intention was originally to select reviews which reflected the critical consensus, so if these just repeat what we've already got is there much of a point? Steve T • C 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few Australian reviews: [5], [6], [7]. I think the section looks decent now. Writing the Critical reaction section is always tricky; I suppose my suggestion is to try to cover the different aspects of the film -- the acting, the writing, the visual effects, etc., if the general consensus has been established. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
For NPOV purposes, no matter where the review comes from (always great to have them from all over the world if you can find them), I tend to believe in the "fair-n-balanced" approached. The great thing about Rotten Tomatoes and MetaCritic is that they compile the statistics for us, so that we don't have to make the section represent a favored opinion. With that, I generally like to have an equal number of positive, negative, and "mixed" (if applicable) in the section. This lets the section stay neutral, but at the same time it should state that there is only a "X % approval rating from Y# of critics". Kind of how Batman Begins fleshes out its critical reaction section. But that's just how I like to do it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I think I misread something somewhere that said the best way to do it is to include a similar ratio of positive/negative reviews as RT or Metacritic reported. But I've certainly no objection to chucking in another positive review or two. If there's time I might also try out mixing the reviews somewhat so it focusses on the acting, writing, etc. in turn as Erik suggested, see how it looks. Steve T • C 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the MOSFILM has really tackled the aspect of "ratios" for pos. and neg. criticism.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, hopefully it's a little more balanced now. I've also split the reviews up to flow a little better, discussing specific aspects of the film in turn. I've only used one of the reviews provided above (plus one other from elsewhere) because I felt in the main they duplicated opinions from the reviews we'd already used, and with the new layout I don't think they're necessary. All the best, Steve T • C 00:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the critical review section have to contain the review of EVERY person to review the movie? I feel like this section of the article is heavily overweight and should be trimmed to a bit more of the essentials; if many viewpoints converge, possibly adding multiple citations would be better. Mizunori (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. As explained above, I've attempted to select viewpoints that say slightly different things from one another. There may still be some scope for further trimming, however. I'll take another look. Steve T • C 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical run

I've been expanding the "Theatrical run" section, so if there are any questions or comments about the section, feel free to weigh in here. I removed one sentence that seems kind of irrelevant now: "By Friday, Hancock had grossed $41.3 million and is reported as on course to surpass $100 million by Sunday. So far, the opening is not considered to be as strong as previous Will Smith openings." From Variety. Does anyone think it's still worth including? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cited The Hollywood Reporter to indicate the worldwide gross for the five-day opening weekend. Box Office Mojo has the same figure for now, so I've commented out the sentence "As of July X, 2008..." since a couple of more days needs to pass before we can use it to constantly update the overall numbers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was going to recommend taking that Variety cite out, as it seemed to conflict with the actual figures, but you've already done that. My only comment for now is to ask whether the initial box office predictions are going to be worth keeping in the long run. I can see the sense either way, to be honest. Some might think it trivia, some might think it a useful tidbit, considering it's managed to rake in the cash despite mainly poor-to-average reviews. In summary, then: dunno :) Steve T • C 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can compress all the predictions into a sentence or two, saying that it ranged from as low as $70 million to as high as $125 million. We could pile up the citations after the sentences, like what was done with the general consensus of critical reactions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Article from Variety: 'Hancock' a hero in Hong Kong. There does not seem to be anything special about the top placement, so I don't know if it's worth including as yet another detail in the "Theatrical run" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article's not loading for me (temporary server thing at their end), but if it details Hancock's strong opening in Hong Kong, I'd include it. If only to present a lack of bias; Hong Kong is still English-speaking to a large extent, so it's as worthy of inclusion as the North American or UK openings, even if it's not technically a country. Steve T • C 12:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's the passage:
That's pretty much it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think there'd be any harm in including one line saying it "took $1.3 million in its opening weekend" in Hong Kong, especially as we detail its openings in other English-speaking territories. I assume that's US dollars rather than HKD? Steve T • C 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Variety speaks in American dollars. :-P I'll include it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Attendance tracking

According to Box Office Mojo, "In terms of attendance, the Will Smith spectacle is tracking ahead of Men in Black II through the same point, though it trails Independence Day and the first Men in Black by a wide margin." I'm having a tough time re-wording this to include in the paragraph about the second weekend... is there some alternative phrasing we can use that would still be understandable by the readers? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Second week's analysis report indicates that the film's recorded attendance is more in comparison to Men in Black II, although significantly less than that of Independence day and Men in Black, at the same point. [Add link to BOM here.]
Might not be that good or what you needed, but I thought I'd try. Or maybe you can edit it to suit your needs. --Chemical Rage (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I pasted your quote in then tried to rewrite it to be fully explanatory. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Like it, explains it well enough. --Chemical Rage (talk • contrib) 15:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Marketing (sunglasses)

I just received an e-mail about the film because its due on Swedish cinema (I am a subscriber to such info from the cinema company). It is headlined by the Hancock poster with the face of Smith in sunglasses, but his glasses reflect the Stockholm skyline. This can also be viewed on the cinema page www.sf.se. If this has occured in other markets (showing their capital cities) in a similar way, perhaps the article should note this? (I'm not updated on notability policy regarding this, just letting everybody know) --Bamsefar75 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is news to me, though I'm not sure if it warrants inclusion. The notability policy does not apply here since the policy is meant for entire articles. Obviously, Hancock is notable. It would be a matter of discussing whether or not this poster information is indiscriminate. In my work with film articles, I do not see much commentary at all about posters. I haven't seen any specific commentary about the Hancock poster, so I don't know if it is a significant detail to include. There have been other aspects of its marketing that have garnered more attention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

To a certain extent, I understand the reasoning behind not including an alert to readers. Unfortunately, I have to be subjective in this situation and say its just somewhat lazy. Please understand that wikipedia users sometimes look to the site for informative synopses. Had I not already seen Hancock, I would have surely been disappointed with the contents of this article not warning about the spoiler. It would have been nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melehen (talk • contribs) 01:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We must keep to Wikipedia standards ;) Perhaps you should take it up at some other place; we can't do much here. NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Something Weird

During the fight scene between Hancock and Mary, there is brief shot of debris and people running fear. During that brief shot there is some strange figure that is taller then everything around it. I noticed it while watching the movie in the theatre, my friends said it looked like Transformer made out of garbage. It was very interesting as it was not mentioned anywhere. Enrique101 — Preceding undated comment added 04:28, July 14, 2008

I am not sure if this is anything significant; it could very well be some kind of Easter egg that is not relevant to the film as a whole. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was there. It looked like a transformer or a robot, but the scene was blurry due to the tornados and debris flying around, so I can't say for sure. Many people believe it to be a guy on stilts. Still, like Erik said, it seems to be nothing of any significance. --Chemical Rage (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Visual effects

Cast

The Cast section, IMO, features details that might be better suited elsewhere. For example:

  1. "To give a realistic appearance of..." - This can be added to the Filming section.
  2. Bateman said, "[It] was a fun thing to..." - A quote in the cast section seems off. Perhaps this too, would look better in the Filming section.

I think that this particular section should only reflect the characters and what role they play.
--Chemical Rage (talk • contrib) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cast section can be used for such details: WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. For example, at The Dark Knight (film)#Cast and characters, there is a ton of detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for the info. --Chemical Rage (talk • contrib) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have a specific issue, though, we can see about addressing it. The quote wouldn't look so odd by itself if there wasn't much else to say about Bateman's character. From what I've read, a lot of stuff related to the cast members were promotional, i.e., "I really had a good time doing this film, yadda yadda..." Heck, Bateman's quote sounds like that. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's alright. I just thought it was a bit odd, adding quotes and info in that section. But I see your point and have to agree with you and the MOS. Perhaps, you could expand it, like how you did for The Dark Knight's Cast and Characters. There is stuff to put in there, like how Bateman's character wants to change the world with the All-Heart stuff, but isn't successful. Then again, it isn't really required. --Chemical Rage (talk • contrib) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll be happy to see that I've replaced the Bateman quote with another, something more relevant to the philanthropic effort of his role. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Good call on this one. Cheers. --Chemical Rage (talk • contrib) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hancock (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Is there suppose to be a big "space" between the Plot and Cast? In the Marketing section, it would be best if "Motion Picture Association of America" was followed by ---> (MPAA).
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to Gary K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

hancock gross 200$

hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toppshawty (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What God is Hancock?

What God does Hancock represent? The Eagle (from his hat, back of suit, drawings on cell, and hanging with an eagle in the end)is his symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.113.211 (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There have not been any reliable sources explaining Hancock's origins as far as I can tell, so it may be that we can only speculate. We can't quite do that here, though... we use articles' talk pages to discuss improvement of the article with available sources. It may be a good idea to find a forum like IMDb to chat about this kind of topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy with box office numbers

The Numbers and Box Office Mojo are reporting different international grosses, so I've included both of them for the time being. They seem to agree on the gross in the United States and Canada so far, so I've included that in the lead. Anyone have any idea why the figures are so off? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Numbers must be wrong; that's too much of a leap on the running totals other RS' have been reporting throughout Hancock's release. Likely no great mystery behind it; someone's added something up wrong somewhere. I'm scouring the breakdowns on both sites now to find the discrepancy. Steve T • C 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I tell a lie. BOM is the one that isn't up to date. The Numbers is including data for most of July. BOM is still missing results from 17 territories that the film opened in during the month. Steve T • C 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, we can revise it accordingly and point to this discussion since there's been some back-and-forth editing about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going with the lower figure, to be on the safe side (it is not beyond a studio to inflate overseas numbers). But as we are at the end of July I expect BOM to update it's figures soon. Darrenhusted (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue, is it really a problem to provide a rough estimate of what the film made overall? While Box Office Mojo is common in film articles, I don't think that this implies that The Numbers is less important. BOM was just there first; it doesn't mean that it's "better". There could be different reasons for the discrepancies -- one or the other could be more accurate and be reported independently of the studio. Geographically speaking, it may not be easy to pull accurate numbers together. Is it that problematic to give a rough estimate? The specific numbers are in the article body, but for an overview, saying $390+ million for outside the United States and Canada and $600+ million worldwide demonstrates a pretty good idea of the film's box office performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But BOM lists actual figures, and is used at the bottom of the page (along with imdb and allmovie) so why not quote them? No doubt this will finish in the top ten for the year and other films quote exact figures (The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Mamma Mia! being three of the top of my head) it would seem strange to fudge this, especially as The Numbers is not actually referred to and BOM is generally used as the most reliable source for BO figures on the majority of film articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, just because Box Office Mojo was there first does not mean that it is "better" than The Numbers. I imagine that back then, there was a need for detailing a film's box office performance, and BOM just happened to come first. Who says that BOM is the most reliable source? Widespread usage does not mean that it's better; after all, if we list it as a staple link in MOS:FILM and not The Numbers, there will clearly be proliferation of the link. Who's to say that it couldn't have been the other way around if The Numbers surfaced first in discussion? Are there any additional reliable sources for box office performance that can show which way to lean? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(To Darrenhusted) That's the thing, I don't think there's any certainty that Box Office Mojo is any more reliable a source than The Numbers; indeed, when this came up the last time, it was the latter that had more up-to-date figures. The fact that BOM has been around and used in film articles for a longer period shouldn't count against any other reliable source when it presents itself. Where there is a discrepancy between two reliable sources and we can't determine which is right, where possible (and where doing so will not impact on quality) the information in the article should be made vague to suit, until the issue is resolved. Steve T • C 15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a Variety ref about the opening weekend, for a start. And BOM may not be reliable but it is used as the quoted figure in FA film articles such as here in 300. If it is good enough to be used in an FA then it must be good enough to quote here. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that Box Office Mojo is the better choice based on the fact that it has a more exact dollar figure of the international sales. I don't think that The Numbers is a bad resource, but since the figures are more demonstrated at BOM this long after the film's release, I will be fine with narrowing it down to BOM barring any unforeseen circumstances. The DVD will actually be coming out soon, so perhaps some light can be shed on the final box office figure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

--Boogerwolfs1111111111111 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)== Tall robot thing ==

6 second YouTube clip<-- what is that thing? If anyone knows then try and work it into the article.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember that being brought up before. I have no idea what it is, and I have not seen any solid commentary about it. Maybe the DVD answers that question? Depending on what it is, it may or may not be important to include. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw this, too. The DVD answered nothing at all. Perhaps it's a hint of a sequel? Strange that nobody's talking about it. They wouldn't have made something like this without reason. 99.0.102.214 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (Chronus Valtiel)
This link, from [8] is supposedly a clear screen capture of it. I'm still baffled. --Auric (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
If there are no reliable sources about this figure, then it is probably not going to have a good place in the article. It seems like an Easter egg at best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
IMDB lists this as a street performer on stilts; in the special features section "Seeing the Future - Mary vs. Hancock" you can see the street performer walk by without the special effects as seen in the movie. Given the scene takes place in Hollywood, it would not be unusual to see various street performers in the shot. Kizzbone (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Kizzbone
While I agree-the evidence is pretty clear-I can't help but consider that the street preformer seems a little less than human in the film. It's just curious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.112.80 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I cant belive it, I think they got the Terminator Salvation idea mixed up with Hancock or something, but I think Its maybe a hint or spoiler of a Villian in a Hancock 2. Believe it or not, this must mean something!!!!--Boogerwolfs1111111111111 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits

  • The <br /> coding in the infobox is XML formatting of <br> and should not be deprecated to a lesser formatting.
  • Unrated cut is ten additional minutes and not a huge deal to mention in the infobox that provides a concise overview of the film. It's no major director's cut or anything.
  • US$ should really be used everywhere because it can't be assumed that the reader will know that $ is the United States dollar. $ can be the Australian dollar, too.
  • No reason to round off the gross... if we had the full figure for the budget, we'd include it, too.
  • Writing it as [[subpoena]]s will automatically wiki-link the whole word, recognizing it as plural. Same with angels.
  • Unnecessary to move Cast section; is there a valid reason for this?
  • Categories should be alphabetically ordered, so the changes made put it out of order.

Just explaining each reason for the revert. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrested Development References?

Was it just me is the movie riddled with Arrested Development references?

  • Jason Bateman & Charlize Theron reprise their role as a couple
  • Red Parker (the lead bank robber) gets his left hand cut off like Buster. Also like Buster, he gets a hook hand.

I'm sure there's more; I only watched the movie once. Has anyone noticed? Wasn't sure if this was intentional, which is why I didn't include it in the article. sohmc (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

75.42.162.55 (talk · contribs) continues to list Daeg Faerch, who had a minor role in Hancock, with Smith, Bateman, Theron, and Marsan. I do not believe that the actor is significant enough to be listed with these major players since his role was not critical to the film's plot. With this basis, I am removing the content about the actor from the "Cast" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Scream?????

There's rumours that there is a Wilhelm Scream in this movie. When exactly is it used, because I recall watching the whole film and heard nothing. Could someone please tell me exactly what scene it is used in, please? 58.178.120.140 (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, someone stated that it's heard during the armed robbery, when one of the burglars gets carried away. I listened on that scene, and what did I hear? ......................... NOTHING! There is no Wilhelm Scream in this movie at all! Even if it's a good imitation I can tell because I recognise the inflection in the voice of the Wilhelm Scream, even if it's abbreviated. 58.178.214.157 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Even if the scream existed in this film, it is likely not a major enough detail to include in this article. (Otherwise we'd have a reliable source about it by now!) But remember that the talk page guidelines are for discussing improvement of the article, not for discussing the article's topic in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian mythology

I've seen hypothesis on several forums as to the god identities of Will and Charlize. Charlize's home is filled with egyptian artifacts. Hancock draws egyptian symbols on his cell wall. Also, there is a pair of egyptian dieties, husband and wife, that I can't remember right now. The wife runs away from her husband, and he has to chase her. When they fight, they create storms and lightning, like in the movie. Can anyone find confirmation of this from the directors. Snookumz (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hancock_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1065985191"