Talk:The Incredible Hulk (film)/Archive 2

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

My Additions[edit]

If any one wants to change it to be more wiki-standard, that's fine, but I came here to find out about the greening effort and about the dispute with the film producers. I didn't move a thing, I just put some sub-headers right were the info was already so that it's easy to find when reading the article.--Joe volcano (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Quote[edit]

Quote styles are preferreble over any home-made solution because they allow accessible browsers. They also deliver a unified style to Wikipedia. Please don't use your own methods unless you have a very good reason. --87.189.61.218 (talk)

If boxes are used elsewhere, they should be removed there also. --87.189.61.218 (talk)

I think the problem is the list, since it does not break. What do you think about the definition list? --87.189.61.218 (talk)

I don't know what you see; I see that the ul does not flow around the box (any of them), but the dl does. What do you see? --87.189.61.218 (talk)

Additional information can be gathered from WP:MOSFILMS#Cast_and_crew_information, where the example uses plain paragraphs with bolded names. --87.189.61.218 (talk)

Please, state any reason to add additional white space to the article. --87.189.61.218 (talk)

I'm curious to know; who are you talking to? -- Harish - 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the guys battling for a whitespace-ladden, MOS-contradicting version of the article without giving any rationale. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY WHITESPACE IS GOOD FOR THE ARTICLE?

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CONTRADICT THE MANUAL OF STYLE FOR MOVIES?

Just asking. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

We use bullets because having just "Liv Tyler as Betty Ross:" isn't a complete statement. The cast section is a "list", not standard prose. You wouldn't have single sentence paragraphs. The only reason the MOS page doesn't have the bullets is because of the way they are presenting the example. If you look at any featured film article with a cast list, they typically have the bullets present (unless there is so much information that prose is acceptable).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why bullets would make the statement complete. What I do see is that they make normal formatting extremley difficult. Bullets are just not made for longer texts, it's a known problem.
Yes, they might be considered a list, but Wikipedia does not offer a practical list for texts this long. Don't you see the problems with the bulleted version?
I don't see that explanation in the MOS. Anyway, if they couldn't use bullets even in the example that would be a damn fine reason why they should be avoided in the first place, wouldn't it? --87.189.121.82 (talk)
(edit conflict) I've attempted to change the first two paragraphs regarding Norton and his role to prose so the quote box can show up correctly. I also rendered the rest of the members in bullet form. Is this an acceptable compromise? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a break in style within the article, I don't think that would be an improvement. --87.189.121.82 (talk)
Norton is the star, and the Hulk is the primary character. Prose about the star and the character are two paragraphs, so it's fine to establish it in paragraph format. The other stars aren't more than a paragraph, though, and considering the range of content from a paragraph to just a few words, bullet format is appropriate for the rest of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might serve as a pretext for the break in style (unless the article is changed and your assumptions no longer apply), but I still see no reason to use the worse solution (ie. bullets) in the first place. How is the article better with bullets? --87.189.121.82 (talk)
I'm not sure why you consider bullets the worse solution. Without bullets, we have a number of single-sentence paragraphs, which are usually frowned upon in Wikipedia articles. None of the cast members amount to more than a paragraph besides Norton, so they can all be prompted up by a bullet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said more than once before, because they limit options. Again, do you think the bulleted text looks just fine? (And again, using multiple styles is bad in another way.) --87.189.121.82 (talk)

Not a compromise, but just because I see again that normal rules of conduct do not apply while talking to an IP (have a look in the history if you don't believe me), I agree to use Erik's suggestion. It's still wrong in completely new ways, but it's the best I can get. Maybe some non-IP editor grabs up the problem and does the rest. --87.189.121.82 (talk)

OK, here's a valid reason for using bullets. In normal prose, paragraphs would be connected. You would read it from top to bottom to get an idea of all of the content. However, the passage about each secondary character stands alone, so it is not necessary to read it from top to bottom. They're all disjointed passages with no relationship with one another. Hence, bullets identify each item as stand-alone. Is this an issue? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bullets are obviously inferior (you yourself removed them for that), not supported by MOS (no bullets in the pertinent secion), they add nothing (because actors/character are clearly discernible by bolding). If you want to grab for arbitrary reasons to apply them by introducing text links, I could easily argue that either section headers or simple paragraphs are always the better choice. Bullets are for very simple lists only, and this is obvious.
Do you get money if the bullets stay? Seriously, the way these little dots are defended here is just weird. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
I removed the bullet for the Norton paragraphs because they were both related to the actor and the role. Bulleting each one would make them stand alone, which would not be accurate. However, the other character passages are stand alone. I'm not trying to argue for the inferiority or superiority of either format, just trying to reflect how it should be applied here, per standard structuring of Cast sections in film articles. In addition, section headers wouldn't be appropriate because there would not be substantial text under each one, and it's a common request to avoid one/two-sentence prose paragraphs. The bullet format identifies each character and its single-paragraph content individually. And no, I don't get money. :) Wikipedia's a hobby for me, that's all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, bullets are inferior, couldn't be use, thus you removed them.
The other character section don't have more than paragraph yet. Worse, bulleting tends to create monster paragraphs, as witnessed by Norton's before the mess started.
I don't claim that sections or plain (ie. non-bolded) paragraphs would be better, just that bullets are, as you demonstrated, the worst solution. --87.189.117.71 (talk)
Oooh, you were all very busy last night. Nice to know it's been sorted out. Alientraveller (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put breaks in Norton's paragraph after seeing it at the State of Play article. I didn't like the whole "other actors" thing. Any objections? Alientraveller (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's truncated the line length of the second paragraph in my browser. How's it look to you? I spent some time reading Help:List this morning looking for ways to make bullets/paragraphs work at State of Play; I'm not 100% sold on how the method I chose looks over there, but the link's got plenty of other examples you could try out here. Steve T • C 11:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm puzzled at what length people go to just to have bullets. --87.189.93.245 (talk)

What's the issue with having an identifying line for secondary actors/roles? It seems like a fair transition, like what was done at Beowulf (2007 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the entries for Betty, Thunderbolt and Abomination are pretty prosy in their own way though. Alientraveller (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beowulf (2007 film) looks fine to me and matches MOS. It's what I suggested for this article. (Before I continue: Would "Bullet-lover" be considered a personal attack?) --87.189.93.245 (talk)
It probably would be perceived as being unable to assume good faith about editors who use them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking me too seriously. --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Since the discussion seems to be on again, I again propose my version using plain paragraphs with bolded actor/character name. (Content changes notwithstanding; don't use my version as shown but regard it as a demonstration.) --87.189.93.245 (talk)

Seems like a good idea. Alientraveller (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the tiny paragraphs that result? It seems to make it very uneven to render it all in paragraph format. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with article layout.[edit]

It'll be easier to show before I explain, so click here. That is what I see. As you can see, there is a ridiculously huge gap between 'Premise' and 'Cast'. Can this be fixed?

Further info: My screen resolution is 1280x800, the browser I'm using is Firefox. -- Harish - 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that, too. I've taken that for granted so far. It's because we're using a {{clear}} template at the end of that section, so it pushes the Cast section to below the infobox. If we didn't do this, well... just preview with the template gone and see what happens. :) (It's because of the quote box, basically.) We can't move the Cast section below the Production section, either -- the same thing will happen with Production's images. It won't be a problem any longer when the film comes out, and we have a beefed-up lead section plus a full-fledged Plot section. I can't really see any solution to this because of how the infobox screws up quote boxes and images. Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond, I gotta admit that it's really impressive how more often then not you're very quick to respond to most discussions that I've set up in Superhero film-based articles. Bacck to this though - Haha, I now see what you mean about the {{clear}} template. Now, for a suggestion... How about temporarily using the {{cquote}} template, and have the quote under Norton in the cast section? (example) It may seem kinda odd but so does the pretty large gap... Again, it would be temporary because as you noted - this won't be a problem when the film's released. That's the best I could think of for now, brother Erik. -- Harish - 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked reasonable questions and have been pretty cordial in discussion with other editors, so I don't mind being a little quicker than normal to respond. :) That solution is possible, but my concern with that is the quote is pretty stand-alone, and using {{cquote}} forces it to become part of the text. For example, a section talks about a director attempts to develop a film, then there's a cquote of his overall thought of it, then additional information follows about how it's finally made. I guess what I'm saying is that it would need transitions if we make it part of the two Hulk paragraphs. I'd suggest in between, but that may require a little shifting around. It's not a bad solution to an unfortunate disruption by the infobox. Anyone else have thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated! Hmmm, you make a very good point, and I should've actually known better. I have one final suggestion: Move the quote to the second paragraph, place it on the left and change the width to (around) 35% (view here). I can imagine a problem there being the bottleneck of words between the quote and infobox, but just in case this idea could help remove a big arse gap - what the hey. How may that suit? -- Harish - 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged edit dispute between Norton and filmmakers[edit]

Nikki Finke is a notable columnist, but is she a reliable source? "Sources also tell me that, starting last night and continuing at least throughout today, the actor will be holed up with Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel, Marvel Studios president of production Kevin Feige, and director Louis Leterrier to try to 'reach an amicable resolution' to this $150+ million film feud." Seems like a controversial subject, so I would wait.[1] Alientraveller (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is somewhat reliable. Nikki does spout some major opinions, but she also has a knack for getting information from inside sources that tends to be correct. Right now, editing problems might actually help the film score a better date where there isn't much competition.96.3.72.93 (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headline below mentions this conflict between Norton and the others. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the dispute is covered in the Characters section of the article, of all places. I'd suggest moving it to the Release section once that gets started, and expanding on it, since other news outlets have picked up on and discussed the story. For example, both Entertainment Weekly and The New York Times (that link Erik provided in the section below this one) discussed how the dispute was overshadowing the movie itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the media overblew the dispute, it's still relevant to how Norton approached this film, and how well he worked with Leterrier. Alientraveller (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't belong in the cast section, particularly since Norton wasn't just the star, what with his script revisions and power over the final edit (which is what caused the dispute in the first place). WesleyDodds (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the Production - Development section, seems appropriate for that area. I came to this article looking for info on the dispute and was surprised to find it in the casting section. Coming to this talk page, I see that it seems acceptable to move it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation dump[edit]

Lee Cameo?[edit]

Will this movie have a cameo by Stan Lee? Atomic Religione (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, since the article hasn't been updated about that. I'm not sure where we could look to confirm it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already in the cast section. He might have filmed it by now. Alientraveller (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I meant by not being updated. We can't verify that he was able to film it (though I think it's pretty likely he did). Does he happen to appear in the trailer at all? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Harrison?[edit]

Anyone notice that the new poster lists Zak Penn and Edward Harrison as the screenwriters? Is this a psuedonymn for Edward Norton? It's been extensively reported that Norton assisted in the screenplay, so why the sudden change to Harrison? Marketing ploy? Studio doesn't want people to know about his involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.80.14 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison is his middle name, and he's done it before. For the record, it's noted in the infobox. Alientraveller (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Hulk 3D cover (Marketing)[edit]

So you guys may have read this, but is it worth mentioning (and using the image) in the marketing section, as Empire magazine (and supposed the the world's) first '3D' cover? Empire: It's The Hulk In 3D! --81.107.101.143 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad citation[edit]

The current article's 30th reference is not working. Tried to fix it by looking at the history, but I must have missed something. Just informing y'all. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's been fixed, and in so doing ,fixed 5 places where that source was cited. It looks like someone removed a section, or sentence, or simply put a new source over an old one, and didn't realize that the source they were stripping out was used multiple times. I'm not gonna try to track dow nteh edit that did it. It's fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. I had to go back to a december 2007 edit, search in the text for 'career', and then figure it out, in case you want to know how I did it. Had I not found the ref name 'career' at all, I'd have come forward in time till it appeared, and if it appeared, but not the citation, i'd have gone back further. Hope this helps. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ThuranX, that's a simple yet clever idea. I'll try that should I notice something like that again. Thanks again for informing me. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday?[edit]

Is the phrase that shows the similarity of abomination and doomsday necessary? I mean, that should be left to the reader´s criteria, right? Unless there´s a quote of someone related to the film saying "yeah, we intended him to have a doomsday feel to it"Franshu (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of the history shows it was added today and it counts as WP:OR. I've removed it. ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Incredible Hulk" article name[edit]

I typed in 'The Incredible Hulk' to look up the film and it directed me to the Hulk (comics) page. I was wondering if it's worth just making this article unambiguous by moving it to 'The Incredible Hulk'? You could easily link to the Hulk character at the top of the article, or (even better) let the link in the intro guide a reader to the Hulk's comic article. Just seems a shame, and pointless to waste such an article title in my opinion. Any thoughts? --81.107.101.143 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The Incredible Hulk' is synonymous with the Hulk (even Stan Lee, in his Dorling Kindersley guide foreword, said the name was incomplete without its adjective). We also need to disambiguate from the TV series and other shows using that title. So sorry if you have to make an extra click. Alientraveller (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it's not the extra click that bothered me. Sarcasm aside, thanks for the information. --81.107.101.143 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that sounded sarcastic, now that I read it, it does sound a little mean being on paper and all... Good to know an extra click doesn't bother you. Alientraveller (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredible_Hulk_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1065986695"