Talk:Jonah Hex (film)

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

Quentin Turnbull[edit]

It may be worth noting that earlier citations identify Quentin Turnbull as a wealthy Southern plantation owner, but more recent citations instead identify him as a voodoo practitioner. I'm not sure if it is a combined role or if there was a redefinition of the character, so in the meantime, I'm describing him as "voodoo practitioner" until there is clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Free the South"?[edit]

In the section "Premise" there is this: "...voodoo practioner Quentin Turnbull...plans to free the Confederate South with an army of the undead." I must ask, free it from what? The cited source, which uses the word "liberate," doesn't elaborate either, I admit, but does that justify leaving this just dangling? Is it within regs to state that this is not explained, at least as of yet? --Ted Watson (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say, honestly. It is related to the Civil War, but I cannot tell if it is during the war or afterward when the Confederacy had lost. We should look out for more citations so we can clarify the premise better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jonah Hex is a post Civil War apocalyptic type of situation about this cowboy [Josh Brolin] who has the ability to talk to dead people." - http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=7648 MopyNZ (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is found on the linked-in page, but what's its relevancy to this discussion? I mean, knowing that the film is post-Civil War doesn't seem to answer my question. We could assume that "Free[ing] the South" means from Reconstruction, but that's synthesis, and isn't necessarily correct at all, anyway. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arnett" source[edit]

I clicked on the linked-in article "Will Arnett joins 'Jonah Hex'," and found to my surprise that one has to pay money to be able to read it. What do Wiki regs say about this sort of difficult-to-check "source"? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was at The Hollywood Reporter, which archives older articles in their subscription-only database. This does not mean that we can no longer cite the article. References do not need to be online; links are intended as conveniences. For full access at this point, though, one would need to subscribe to the database or use a library account that has access to the database. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It is a published-on-paper newspaper-like magazine, with back issues available for free at public libraries. My apologies. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have access to the article through a library account, so if you're interested in seeing the article, I'll be happy to share its contents. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Not enough for that trouble, certainly. I was just a ittle curious. Thanks for the offer, though. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image's caption[edit]

The newly added image bears the caption, "Brolin, Fox, and Fassbender promoting the film at the 2009 San Diego Comic-Con International." Who is Fassbender? I cannot find that name anywhere else in this article, so if he was just some Con official this is not how the caption should read. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premise re-write?[edit]

I think the whole premise section could do with a re-write. I half heartedly attempted to correct spelling and punctuation, but you can't polish a turd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.29.88 (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion/Lack of?[edit]

I disagree with JayHenry's comment that the lack of promotion comment is "obviously true and supported by sources". Warner Brothers had a website, facebook group, ran tv ads etc for the film in the lead-up to release. There was some comments on fan sites that WB's left it a bit late, but not sure that equals proof of the matter. Needs some references added to that sentences to back it up.MopyNZ (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise - Deleted as all past events or dropped products[edit]

  • Tonner Doll Company, Inc. released in May 2010 Saloon Lilah as a doll.[1]
  • NECA has released an assortment of 3 action figures (Hex, Lilah, and Turnbull), and has plans to release prop replicas from the film.[2]
  • WizKids released a Heroclix Battle Pack consisting of Hex, Lilah, and Turnbull.[3]
  • DC Direct has released a Jonah Hex bust,[4] a Lilah bust,[5] and a 1:6 scale Jonah Hex Collector Figure.[6]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Meet Saloon Lilah, a Jonah Hex Comic-Con Exclusive from Tonner". Dreadcentral.com. 2010-06-18. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  2. ^ "National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc". www.necaonline.com. 2010-04-23. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  3. ^ "Jonah Hex coming to HeroClix in 2010 : Heroclix.com – Wizkids/NECA, Inc". Heroclix.com. 2010-06-01. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  4. ^ "DC Direct". Dccomics.com. 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  5. ^ "DC Direct". Dccomics.com. 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  6. ^ "DC Direct". Dccomics.com. 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2011-01-31.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Reasons For Deletion[edit]

Reverted reversion "14:45, February 27, 2014‎ 93.107.219.156 (talk)‎ . . (25,068 bytes) (+1,709)‎ . . (It was part of the promotion of the film. Not clear why you'd expect ongoing availability of the merchandise. Undid revision 597057982 by ConradPino (talk)) (undo)" for these policy reasons:

  • The stated reversion reason, "It was part of the promotion of the film." is at best a notability assertion which fails as cited sources are all Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE since material is self published promotion of publisher's product or event.
  • Moreover, Wikipedia:PROMOTION contravenes policy and warrants heightened scrutiny to assure some encyclopedic purpose and deleted section just asserts promotion occurred which is not an inherently notable activity.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Your reasons make sense, the sources aren't great and it isn't written in a more general marketing/promotion way. Seems a shame to remove edits people added in good faith but there isn't anything particularly special about this merchandise. -- 147.252.95.85 (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonah Hex (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) 18:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonah_Hex_(film)&oldid=1206845651"