Talk:Hellboy (2019 film)

Year Change
Since the film was announced to be released in January of 2019, should this instead be titled "Hellboy (2019 film)"? 2605:6000:101B:81B9:8CAA:3D4F:E:224C (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Harbour as Hellboy
Here I had to restore the mention that Harbour plays Hellboy. WP:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." For this reason, we should not be hiding the fact that Harbour plays Hellboy. I don't know why it has to be explained, but if the lead section names a titular character (especially a linked one) and the actor who plays that character, make the connection. This should be done for all standalone superhero movies. We should not assume that everyone has fan-level knowledge of the movies. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wording of Reception section
In lieu of an edit war, wanted to get opinions on how this should be worded in the Reception section:

A) “On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film received an average rating of 3.57 out of 10, with an overall 12% approval rating based on 84 reviews.“

-or-

B) On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 12% based on 84 reviews, received an average rating of 3.57/10.

The second option (B) is how it is typically formatted/worded in film articles, as it puts the overall score first then the supporting details, and I also think it flows better. Thoughts? TropicAces (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with option B. "Received" is past tense while "Holds" is present tense and the tomato-meter is always being updated. Armegon (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, one can clearly change "received" to "holds", so I don't see any rationale behind your comment. (B) is not typically formatted/worded in film articles. You may think like that because you add (B) when contributing to a reception section. The actual point here is not to write summaries in an exact format with no deviation from that format, so (A) is just an example how to write it differently. You can join for a more comprehensive discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Sebastian James (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
An approval rating score of 15% based on 136 reviews suggests to me that this film was panned by critics, as opposed to simply being received negatively as currently described in the article's first/primary section Noah-x3 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hellboy meta movie review: Critics pan the film as a complete ‘mess’
 * Critically Panned HELLBOY Reboot
 * Some sources have used the term panned but not many. I think the reviews have been particularly harsh because of the comparison to the previous films, but even the positive reviews have plenty of negative points to make. Rotten Tomatoes polarizes the reviews, but look at Metacritic where 22 out of 41 reviews are mixed.
 * So you while you could probably justify using the term "panned" but I don't think it is necessary. -- 109.76.225.99 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh and the praise for Jovovich in the lead seems WP:UNDUE. It isn't clear to me where this praise came from, it seems to only be from the writer of the summary at Gamesradar and the AV Club who sort-of-praised Jovovich, describing her as "the most committed, and therefore the best, performance in the film." That's faint praise, and other critics said bad things about her performance. -- 109.76.225.99 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the lead for now since it was attempting to summarize text that simply was not included in the Critical response section (partly due to this big delete). The article should include things before the intro summarizes it, but the Critical response section, could be expanded to include details that have not already been mentioned. -- 109.79.78.174 (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't accomplished your intentions on Unicorn Store page, and now you are here. Great. Do not remove sourced info, if you want to help the page, expand the critical reception section. Sebastian James (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You aren't making it clear why you feel the need to delete reviews instead of rephrasing them or adding other reviews. Smaller more specific deletes or copyediting would be helpful, rather than deleting a whole review because of particular bits that have been selected from it.
 * I tried to expand the text to support the overview, so it would be summarizing what was also in the article, so it doesn't get deleted again. The AV Club review provides a specific example of praise for the design of the film, and the one example of praise for Jovovich. I agree that "Some praise" is a fair description of the praise David Harbour received in various otherwise largely negative reviews, which is why I made it clear that Variety praised Harbour despite an otherwise negative review, but I do not agree that "some praise" applies to Jovovich when most of the reviews criticize nearly all the cast, and only that one review seems to praise her.
 * It isn't clear why you deleted the other reviews such as from Robbie Collin of The Telegraph. This is a film by a British director and it is set in the UK (and Lane and Kim have been described as struggling with their British accents too) so the article should include more British reviews. -- 109.79.78.174 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been a week since you have apperared out of nowhere, making disruptive edits. Do you want semi-protection so that you can't edit without an account? If you want to be helpful, you should start using Template:Cite web. Then, you should discuss on the talk page before removing sourced infos no matter what. You also should wait for more than two opinions when discussing an issue. You can't reach a consensus with only two editors. And I suppose, lastly, you should read more policies and guidelines, in this case starting with MOS:MOVIE. Sebastian James (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The belligerent attempts by Sebastian James to put undue emphasis on positive reviews (in the intro especially) and claim this film was not terrible have since been removed. Objective editors can still discuss how to present the bad reviews in a fair and neutral way. -- 109.76.202.17 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Brazil release date
I edited the page with a cited article listing the Brazilian release date as May 26. However, I noticed shortly after this article as well as IMDB lists the release date as May 16. https://jovemnerd.com.br/nerdbunker/hellboy-estreia-e-adiada-em-um-mes-no-brasil/

I am unable to find a third source to figure out which article contains the typo, and which has the correct date. Can anyone verify whether May 16th or May 26th is the correct release date? AgeofUltron (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2019 (PST)

Foreign box office
We're citing https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=hellboy2019.htm as a source for the foreign box office receipts. I copied and pasted the table into Excel and totaled it; I came up with $21,431,257. says it's $24 million. Can somebody else do the math and tell me what you come up with? —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's 24,032,039 with the Box Office Mojo numbers!!! Period! Equal.Boy (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the other $2,600,782 coming from that isn't in the source table? —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The numbers may have changed since my previous calculation a few days ago or I may have gone wrong: indeed, I just recalculated and found $21,431,257 too!!! My apology... Equal.Boy (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is American. Their business is the American domestic totals. They frequently fail to keep the worldwide totals up to date, as you have already proved to yourself by adding up the table in a spreadsheet. Sometimes they update and correct the totals eventually, other times they don't bother. This is why The-Numbers.com often has slightly higher final worldwide totals than Box Office Mojo. The first time it is surprising but less and less over the many years you continue to notice it. (Also weirdly they will sometimes post early opening weekend figures only to reduce them later, but those corrections are even more difficult to catch.)
 * For the purposes of Wikipedia go with what the sources actually say. Even if they don't always add up. Don't try and "fix" the sources, use the sources as they are, or use a different source. -- 109.78.229.145 (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hellboy (upcoming film) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hellboy (upcoming film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was pointless to ask for discussion, was deleted as standard maintenance. Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_14 -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Mignola
Mike Mignola interview. So much information, comments about the production, development, writing, discussing with Harbour and said his performance was "fantastic". (Ignore the clickbait headline, it is taken out of context, he's a creator with mild separation anxiety "It’s like watching your kid grow up and move away. They’re doing shit you don’t know anything about and you kinda miss when they lived in the house.") -- 109.76.153.134 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Worst
Hellboy appeared on a few end of year worst lists I'll add more if I find them. Though it looks likely to be overshadowed by the much more spectacular and high-profile failure of Cats. -- 109.79.188.174 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Found a review that said Hellboy was "Destined for the 'Worst Films of All Time' lists" but that was just another review. Critics just don't do worst of year lists quite like how they do best of year lists. The worst of the year lists I was able to find all seem to be based on the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic scores (or both), rather than an expert critic doing an end of year review. It's understandable really because it was a flawed disappointing film rather than an outright terrible film. So, since they are judging based on the aggregator scores anyway and not adding anything new, I don't think it would improve the article to add any of the worst of lists. -- 109.76.198.88 (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead dispute
This is getting ridiculous. User talk:187.74.166.115 has made some contributions to the article, , , which is totally fine. I made contributions of my own to polish the IP's edits but they reverted them yet the IP had the nerve to accuse me of WP:OWN. Option A: "It is a reboot of the Hellboy live-action film series and its third installment" is too rough and had room for improvement; hence why I copyedited it as Option B: "A reboot of the Hellboy film series, it is the third live-action film after Hellboy (2004) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)".

So it's best to draw up a consensus to see which version stays on the lead, or if we can come up with an OPTION C that everyone can get onboard with. Armegon (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * As an alternative, we could use similar wording to that used for Star Trek: "It is the 3rd film in the Hellboy franchise, and is also a reboot that features characters from the comic book series portrayed by a new cast, as the first in an intended rebooted film series." DonIago (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems too long for Hellboy, don't ya think? Star Trek (2009) can get away with it because it's both a remake and reboot, so the long context is somewhat warranted. While Hellboy (2019) is just a plain reboot, total reset. How about this..."Intended as a reboot, it is the third installment in the franchise's live-action film series"? I added "intended" because the producers did intend to start a new series of films beginning with Hellboy (2019) but it failed. So this became a one-off film. Now they're proceeding with another reboot, different from 2019, with the same goal: kickstarting a film series. Armegon (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That phrasing implies that the film wasn't actually a reboot (just intended as one), which it was. How about, "Intended as the first in a new film series, it is a reboot and the third live-action Hellboy film.? Sorry if that's still a bit of a mouthful; it's getting late in the evening for me. DonIago (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Same here. I'll have to respond in 8 hrs from now too. And yeah, it is a bit of a mouthful and the "as the first in a new film series" part sounds more appropriate for the following paragraph. What about..."Serving as a reboot, it is the third entry in the franchise's live-action film series". Or maybe a shortened version of Option B? Think of this as Option C: "A reboot of the film series, it is the third live-action entry in the franchise." I also think we should use "entry" over "installment" since it means the same thing and is shorter. Brevity and simplicity should be our goal here. Armegon (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option C sounds fine for me, but maybe I'm tired of nitpicking a single sentence. :) DonIago (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Great! However, I think we should wait a little before adding anything definite on the article. I noticed that User talk:187.74.166.115, the one who disputed my edits to begin with, hasn't participated here or WikiProject Film yet, despite me leaving notices on their talk page . If they don't respond then my original OPTION B edit should be restored since there is no further protest against it from them. Armegon (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)