Talk:Dennis Hopper

Main photo

TACKY PHOTO. There has to be a photo more representative of his life than this one, taken in his last days. It's his life, but it's not a decent photo representing the Dennis Hopper of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.45.104 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

it would be good to have a pic of him from the 1960s, 70s or 80s, which the article is lacking. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gorillaz

Dennis hopper will apprear in new Gorillaz CD called "Demon Days". the song: "Fire Coming out of the monkeys head". -nick

• cited. --Lexein (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Young

nothing on his friendship and film with neil young?

Art history

If it is true that Hopper still seems himself as an artist first, has had work published about him, and actually has produced a fairly weighty body of works, this article should really stop being a compendium of his film work and personal life and branch out into his artistic accomplishments more explicitly. There is at least one book out about Hopper's art and the lack of inclusion here is telling.

Speed 3?

What is this Speed 3 nonsense? Is it just me, or is this pure gossip?

Not dead

Earlier this page was edited and cited http://www.mahalo.com/dennis-hopper-dead as proof that he had died. The news site (if you can call it that) is old news from when he went into hospital and people thought he was dying right then, not about now, and doesn't state a date of death so I have no idea where the editor got the date from. I mention this here because the edit hasn't been mentioned and I felt it should. 78.86.230.62 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Years active

The infobox says 1955-present. It appears that he was forced to retire last year due to a decline in his health, and that he is too ill to work again. If that is the case, it should be changed to 1955-2009. Two films dated 2010 are on his IMDb profile, but I believe that is their release date. I don't see any evidence that he has worked this year. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. In the absence of any formal announcement and source that Hopper "retired", due to his health or any other sort of reason, it is inappropriate to change it to retired. That he was ill and perhaps expected to die doesn't particularly mean he wouldn't make an appearance or be considered done. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He was terminal and knew he was dying. The effects of his cancer forced him to retire. The only appearance in relation to his career that he seems to have made this year was at the unveiling of his star on the Walk of Fame, which doesn't count as a role or as part of his acting career. As there is no evidence he worked this year, I think we should assume he didn't. Usually, you prove a positive rather than prove a negative. If we can't show he worked this year, and under the circumstances it is unlikely, I think we should assume he didn't. Jim Michael (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And you state that based on what? A discussion with Hopper? Nope, we do not make assumptions. All we can do is include what can be reliably sourced. Otherwise it becomes original research. In the absence of a reliable source that says Hopper "retired", we cannot report it or take it upon our selves to indicate his career ended with "retired" or in 2009. Myriad actors die and if work is still to be debuted, they are considered active in their profession. Factually, making a public appearance to receive an award based on his film work is connected to his acting career. While the circumstances are certainly very different, this is no different than editors coming in and putting an end date to the career of Jamie Lynn Spears because she took a couple years off to have a family. We do not draw a conclusion ourselves to publish in these articles based on personal reasoning. We can only say what is supported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since when do WE determine when an actor retires? Mike Allen 03:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Wildhartlivie. If there's a source where he announced "I'm not acting anymore", then he retired. In the absence of such a source, we can't just say "he retired". For instance, (I don't even want to think about it, but) if Leonard Nimoy died next year, he would be listed as "active" through this year because he has announced his retirement from acting.  Chickenmonkey  03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've Googled it, but I can't find any source that says Dennis Hopper retired. Plus, he was still doing commercials and voice-overs. Leonard Nimoy retiring is sad. Hope he's okay.Malke2010 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source for Hopper having done any commercials or voice work this year? If so, that would show he was active this year. Otherwise, saying he was active this year would be an assumption. Collecting an award is obviously connected to his acting career, but is not acting work. An actor who retired years ago could be given a star on the Walk of Fame or be given a lifetime achievement award, but it wouldn't mean they had come out of retirement and become active again. The same would apply to a retired musician or sportsperson being given an award; they wouldn't be continuing or resuming their career. We can't go by when a subject's last film is released, because sometimes that is the year after their death. We wouldn't say that Heath Ledger continued to be active or continued to act after his death just because two of his films, The Dark Knight and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus were released after his death. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source that is needed is one that says "Dennis Hopper retires" or some variation thereof. You're assuming he retired without attributing that assumption to a reliable source. Gary Coleman hadn't worked since 2009, I guess he retired, too (?). Is it likely that Dennis Hopper's illness resulted in his inability to work? Yes, however, we can't just say anything that's likely; it has to be sourced.  Chickenmonkey  18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

Year of diagnosis

In October 2009, it was revealed to the media that he has prostate cancer. This article Cancer-stricken Easy Rider star files for divorce from his deathbed says he is believed to have been diagnosed in 2002. Does anyone have a ref that is certain of the date of diagnosis? Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The article should mention that Hopper was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2002. (92.11.232.81 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Mention in lead?

I think his cancer is relevant enough to his life to be mentioned in the lead; it appears that he continued to work until he became too ill to continue. I added his diagnosis to the lead, but it was removed. Anyone have any opinion on its inclusion? Jim Michael (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Art

I notice that some useful information about Hopper as an artist, has been added to the lead section. The problem is the per WP:LEAD the section should be a summary of the article. Therefore there should be nothing in the lead that is not discussed in the article, however his work as an artist did not exist in the article at all. I created a section to include this information and copied and pasted it without changing or removing anything. My edit is here I left a simple sentence in the lead section to act as a summary. I think the source [1] doesn't really support everything that it is used to support, but I hope the sourcing can be improved or the information reworded somewhat. I'm not quite sure what is meant by the sentence "His photography is known for portraits from the 1960s." I think it needs to be clarified. Rossrs (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing picture

What is up with the main picture? It looks like he has a tissue growing out of his head. Are we sure this is suitable for an encyclopedia? Tinton5 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the reply I got User talk:Mlpearc#Images. Have to agree with his reason, not a great pic, but recent Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(the reply from User:Nehrams2020 has been archived and can be found here) Rossrs (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the perfect picture but it's honest. It shows his features clearly and it's a good quality image. Would be better without the bandage, but it's otherwise a good image. The previous image was good too, but in my opinion it was not as suitable. The dark sunglasses completely change his look, and for an infobox it's good that we can at least see his features. If we get a better picture, more recent or whatever, obviously we'd go with that, but for now I think this is the right choice. Rossrs (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy that says that we have to or should use the most recent image. The previous image, File:Dennis Hopper hat.jpg, is just fine for the infobox. This one could be moved down to the health section (or just be removed completely, as we already have an image from the event). Nymf _hideliho! 18:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? Nymf _hideliho! 01:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a matter of taste. To me, the eyes are one of the most noticeable and identifiable attributes of a person, and in File:Dennis Hopper hat.jpg his eyes are obscured by his sunglasses. Sunglasses are obviously more "appealing" visually than an ugly bandage, but at least his face is completely visible in the bandage photo. Neither picture is perfect. I agree that there is nothing to say we must use the most recent picture, and I think the main aim of the infobox image should be to use the picture that most clearly depicts the person and shows what they look/looked like as clearly as possible, for identification only, bearing in mind that the image is usually shown without context. By that I mean that although I prefer the "bandage" picture, the "bandage" is unexplained and out of place in the infobox. On the other hand, it shows more of his face than the sunglasses shot. My comment previously was mostly about the sunglasses, not which photo is the most recent, which seems to be the main point in your reply. I agree we don't need two images from the same event, and agree that more comments would be helpful. This is just a comment of course, and if you want to change it to the sunglasses photo and remove one of the two bandage pics, I wouldn't disagree. Rossrs (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

From WP:NFC#UUI: "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

So bearing in mind the above, why can't we use the image in the article where he's at the Oscars with Jack Nicholson as the main picture? Or use another picture that may or may not be public domain, that shows Dennis' face more clearly without that weird bandage on his head? Because it's not like he looked like a cancer patient his entire career. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Still a good point, I hope consensus sways that way. I would rather have the Hopper/Nicholson. Actually I rather have the one that was there before, I think he was on a boat. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A picture from "Easy Rider" would be better. (92.13.75.168 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

You have one ? Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I removed Category:Converts to Christianity as the article doesn't state that he was. Does anyone know what religion he was? Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopper often spoke about his "return" to Christianity and his religious views. It was part of the seeming contradictions in his life. A drug-using, alcoholic counterculture figure, who was also deeply conservative (on guns, abortion, immigration, taxes, etc.) and an unapologetic Republican in ultra-liberal Hollywood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.106.139 (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some reliable sources and info about his religion and politics would be an improvement to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Filmography

Dennis Hopper has two credits for video games in his filmography with no mention for his work in "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" as the voice of Steve Scott. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City -Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.165.146 (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't normally list video game titles in the filmography proper. They should come out and if anything, a separate table for video game appearances created. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

William Hopper

Someone told me (or I might have read) years ago that Dennis Hopper was the younger brother of William Hopper, who played Paul Drake on the Perry Mason TV series, and that both were sons of Hedda Hopper. I repeated that to other people right up until yesterday but I see now that it's not true. Does anyone know how widespread that myth was?