Talk:Hancock (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future
This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Article milestones
December 29, 2005 Articles for deletion Deleted

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hancock (film) article.
Article policies
A fact from Hancock (film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 July 2007.
Wikipedia


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Headlines

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

[edit] 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"? -- Collectonian (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)? -- Collectonian (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 Collectonian 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)