Talk:Tom Hanks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tom Hanks article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Years of Oscars

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000158/awards

At this page the years of all Oscars and nominations is one year later and it may be correct because then would be the same years than golden globes.

If you clic on the year at this page then it shows the nominations and winners. I think that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor is bad because the years are the years of the films and not the years of the Oscar celebrations, for example the last year is 2006 althought it should be 2007

I'm sorry for my English, I'm spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.33.238 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5'10?

I think the source about him being 5'10 is inaccurate. I generally see sources creditting him at 6'1, and he appears to be quite tall onscreen.

Here' a picture of him next to 6'0 Leonardo DiCaprio

http://entimg.msn.com/i/gal/TomHanks/wood0388506210_400.jpg

I think Leo is shorter than 6'. There aren't many 5' 10" actors, but there are many 6' actors. Tom really is 6 or maybe 6' 1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.68.6 (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highest Grossing Actor of all time?

According to this site, Samuel L Jackson is the higher than Tom Hanks. 84.66.72.88 14:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the sidebar on this CNN page, Harrison Ford's grosses "are the second-highest of any actor in Hollywood history, after Tom Hanks." (emphasis mine; note: no mention of Samuel Jackson). Furthermore, according to Box Office Mojo, Samuel Jackson ranks 8th on the list. That's two distinct, co-supporting, reputable sources that agree on at least the top two names on the list (and neither of them are Samuel Jackson! ;). 216.240.7.149 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's the problem as I see it. Box Office Mojo doesn't count most minor roles - so a few of Jackson's bit parts in films that grossed a lot of money aren't counted. Thus the discreprancy. Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
CNN also references Hanks and Ford as #1 and #2 respectively (which mirrors Box Office Mojo's data) and, although they don't cite their source, I would take the "word" of two concurring, reputable sources over one that cites only the actor himself as the source[1]: "Jackson says he recently passed Harrison Ford". Although that article does cite IMDB as saying he's #2, it doesn't actually link to any information to support that statement.216.240.7.149 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well we should probably put up both accounts, and note the contradiction, if both sources are reliable. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Samel L. Jackson is not the highest grosing actor of all time, it is Hanks. Gross credit for films they starred in (had a major role) and should not include films with 4 minite cameos. 205.188.116.8 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you indeed only count for films where someone has a major role, then it is really between tom hanks and harrison ford...however if you count all films one has appeared in...still samuel jackson may be one of the top contenders but my money will be on Christopher Lee...he has appeared in star wars, lord of the rings, james bond and numerous other films....---Khernitz 05:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Allright, i'm going to point some things out now:

  • A. According to the site we have as our source, Eddie Murphy is the highest grossing actor of all time (Ya right!)
  • B. According to that same site, Leonardo DiCaprio isn't even on the list of top 50 actors which drop total lifetime gross down to 1.3 billion dollars, despite the fact that his one movie Titanic would put him in the number 19 spot, and then if you added all the other films he's been in he'd be boosted even higher to at least the top 5.
  • C. According to the last piece of information we had here about him, it said he had the highest gross of all time at 2.6 billion dollars

[edit] Picture

It would be nice to have a better picture than the article has at present. Dougz1 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, why is it that all the pictures on the actors pages look totally retarded, for lack of a better word--121.222.122.195 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrid picture your right, what can we do? Gaogier Talk! 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all part of Wikipedia. We can only use media in the public domain or ones licensed under the GFDL (or whatever they've decided the latest license should be). They're almost impossible to get—most stuff on the Internet is copyrighted, whether or not it's explicitly stated. So we're stuck with really sucky ones that editors take with their cell phone cameras. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not much you can do about the image without finding one someone is willing to give up the rights to in writing. The 'paparazzi' sell images for hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands. Maybe Tom will grant us with a picture? He's probably the only actor I can think of that has lead his life with the greatest of integrity and done wonderful things for this world with his entertaining films. I would love to see an image that reflects him a bit better than this one for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.68.6 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has anyone read the biography?

Anyone at all, it doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bklynboi93 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DS2434 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


ICH BIN EIN VOLLIDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.32.5 (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1993 Golden Globes

In 1993 he was nominated for best actor on BOTH the drama (Philadelphia) and comedy/musical (Sleepless in Seattle) categories. Has any other actor ever achieved this? If not I think it would be worth a mention in the article. --Scuac (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Edit War Violation - Photo

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please stop the edit war now.

Go out and ask other editors to vote on which image they like best, or suggest other alternatives.

[edit] VOTE

(FOR, AGAINST, NEITHER)

Begin-14 May 2008
End-31 May 2008
  • NEITHER: At this point I would like to see some more alternatives if there are any. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't vote on Wikipedia, and what's the point of attempting to introduce one if you're sitting on the fence? And there wasn't a three-revert violation. Apart from that, though... - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
At least in the 2004 picture he is looking the right direction (you should always try and choose pictures where the subject is looking into the center of the article if you can help it, instead of looking at the edge that they are on) and it is a clearer picture. JayKeaton (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)