Talk:Hook (film)/Archive 1

Symbolism

Why is there no discussion of the symbolism and metaphors so richly used in this film? To get you started, think of Captain Hook who "fears time" and therefore destroys clocks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ? (talk • contribs) .

For one, WP:OR. —ptk✰fgs 09:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The New Storyling

The New Storyline, submitted by Jedi Striker is way to long, and obviously regurgitated from somewhere else and should be reverted jerkmonkee 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly are you implying? I just gave the story exactly how it was depicted. Jedi Striker 23:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two English cells?

Why are there two language/English cells in the infobox in this article. I tried getting rid of one but couldn't, could someone please do it? Thanks. Эйрон Кинни 19:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

TRIVIA?

Who made that section, because it's really awful, and needs major work to make it feasable. It should probably just be eliminated.CDiddles

"Uncredited George Lucas and Carrie Fisher portray the kissing couple when Tinkerbell carries Peter in Neverland." WHAT?! That sounds impossible. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Fishyfred 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm amazed that most of that stayed on the page that long. IMDb has also been submitted with similar disinformation. It's either the same people spreading these rumors, or someone read the info either here or there and mistook it as real. The problem with IMDb is that anyone can add anything, and there's no verification process. I've seen it dozens of times that blatant rumor and disinformation is added and it slips right by their fact-check department. —scarecroe 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we just remove this section altogether? There are no links to back any of this information up, and all of the notes - from Lucas & Fisher kissing to Hook/Smee homosexual subtext to Glenn Close as an old pirate - sound completely made up. -- Tom H12 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rufio the rock band

Rufio links to a rock band out of California. I kinda see it as unrelated to the movie, besides their name, which comes from the movie. Does anyone know if there was another page for the character, instead of the rockband.Caval valor 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rufio is the name of the character played by Dante Basco, and was one of his first supporting actor roles. He played the counter to the Serious grown up Peter Pan. Furthermore, there was a subplot in their relationship. Because of this, and his predominance, his character became a role-model for filipino youth.

I would suggest that Dante Basco be listed as an important supporting actor and placed in the starring list.

72.199.154.162 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

Man, that's long. Do we really need all of that? Compare to the synopsis of Revenge of the Sith here (a featured article). —ptk✰fgs 09:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. The length is way above what a Wikipedia article should provide. Since I don't have the time or the nerve to edit it down, I added a wikify tag to the top. Maybe willing editors will be attracted by it. — Mütze 21:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved the tag to the section it relates to. Rich257 08:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that might be better. Thank you. — Mütze 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the "story" section just completely removed? We have the plot summary, and then follow it with a poorly written dialogue of the entire movie. I seriously doubt it'll be missed.Knightrojen 03:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the "story" section should be removed, but I feel the "Plot" section is a bit rushed. My opinion, lose the story section, but first edit the plot. Tyro_Kith 8:23, 13 October 2006

I do apologize for my plot summary for being too long and too positive. I've grown up with Peter Pan, and I thought Hook was awesome. Again, I am sorry. Jedi Striker 17:55, 01 August 2007

POV problems?

Am I the only one who thinks certain parts of this article read too much like a (positive) review? --Redeagle688 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Whereas this article claims more than once that the film received "mixed" reviews, given the Rotten Tomatoes rating it would be more accurate to say the reviews are nearly all terrible. BotleySmith (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A Mistake Within The Mistakes

"When Peter visits Tinkerbell in her house, he asks her "are you sad?" Tink responds "no, I'm neither. Please go away." Peter then says "oh you're sick." Peter should have said "are you sad? oh you're sick" and THEN Tink would've responded "no I'm neither...""

The above is not a mistake, I don't think. The exact dialogue runs with Peter flying towards Tinkerbell's house saying, "Tink, are you in there?" Then, "Tink, are you sad?" It is to this that Tinkerbell responds "No, I'm neither, please go away", which makes it a perfectly legitimate statement and not at all erroneous.

Julia roberts

Why has he refused to work with her since? why not put the reason in? if she was set to be replaced, why wasn't she? 24.69.67.173 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly it was because she was very diva-like and made ridiculous demands. I don't know why she wasn't replaced. -- Annie D 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

John & Michael

Anyone know why these two aren't in the film. I think their absence is very important because they were the third and fourth main characters in the novel. Only referenced once in the film.

Be sure to quote who you are. As for John and Michael's absense from the film, their names are seen on the tree with a face, and Peter makes several references to them. Two unknown actors portrayed them in a memory of when Peter was younger. Jedi Striker, 23 November 2008, 16:41 (UTC)

Superbit DVD

Does the Superbit edition of the DVD really look better than the original DVD? Does the original DVD have the DTS soundtrack? --blm07 04:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

'to die would be an awfully big adventure'

I thought that in Hook, this line was changed to: 'To live would be an awfully big adventure', 'to live would be the biggest adventure of all' or somesuch.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both lines are present. The 'to live' line is the conclusion of the film. -Toptomcat (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hook (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Production section, "In 1987", add a comma after "1987".

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Production section, I believe there's an extra bracket after Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Same section, it would be best if "Tri Star Pictures" is linked once, per here. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since their websites and per here.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Is Reference 4 supposed to be a book cite or cite web?

   I would suggest fixing the ref. with {{cite journal}}. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference 4 is a magazine cite. Wildroot (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, all of the comments have been addressed. Wildroot (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Close and the Boo Box

"Glenn Close similarly appears as a male pirate who is punished by Hook. "

Think it would be helpful mentioning the Boo Box somewhere in the above so its more understandable which pirate its talked about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.226 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

references?

Are we supposed to know what "Ana Maria Bahiana (March 1992). "Hook", Cinema Papers, pp. 67—69. Retrieved on 2008-09-23." is? If it's "Retrieved", is it from the Internet - if so, why is there no link? If not, why's there nothing else? Iridos (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Retrieved" phase. Thanks for the heads-up! Erik (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Cult" film

Declaring that this (or any) film is a "cult film" is problematic. Especially in this case: It was a major-studio production, by a big-name director, with an all-star cast, which did great box office, and was nominated for several awards. If it still has devoted fans, that might make it a "classic", but that's not a cult. It's in a whole different league from indie films which have become popular in spite of those humble beginnings, or from box-office flops which have found niche audiences that still love them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole concept of a "cult film" is based on subjective opinion. There's obviously no standard definition, and opinions of what makes something a "cult" film vary. (I find the notion of this as a cult film difficult to fathom.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)