I suspect this movie made more than $10,000,000. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=howardtheduck.htm lists it as having a revenue of almost $38M for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsHolmberg ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering, what is this movie rated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supernerd 10 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
really? sounds like someone's opinion to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.114.82 ( talk) 06:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
like a lot of people's opinion. honestly, the criticism was unDUCKable. and that's a funnier joke than anything in the movie. 76.27.232.185 ( talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Its budget was 30 million and it grossed 15 million domestic, it could be regarded as a financial flop. This would be more fact based than "worst movie ever made". [1] Gmarquartmsg ( talk) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
References
This article, even after a first pass at policy/guidelines editing and WP:FILMS formatting, continues to be seriously below Wikipedia standards. As it stood, there were extremely large amount of uncited POV and original-research essaying, as well as many WP:DATED vios. I've also commented-out an alleged quote that had no citation other than it ostensibly came from some issue or other of Starlog. The entire article is unreferenced.
I've also removed two inappropriate, unsigned posts on this Talk page, which like Wikipedia article pages, must adhere to policies and guidelines, and serve for discussion of improving the article and not as a general forum for the topic.
Please do not edit this article without first having read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia for a basic understanding of policies and guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the film was originally planned as being animated needs a source. Also, I removed the links to Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic because I have no idea if that was the tone that Universal would have gone with had the character of Howard been used in an animated feature, or if this was added because fans of the comic books wanted this to be an animated film in the style of those works. If this is sourced as being the original proposed tone, it can be restored. It would seem likely if there was a point in the film's development where George Lucas would not have been involved in the film, but not if Lucas was involved from the start, as he (along with the director and screenwriter) seems to be the main reason why the final film was so commercial in tone. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This article is shaping up - could be a featured article along the lines of Battlefield Earth. Does anyone have a really good source stating Steve Gerber's opinions of the flick? There's a quote attributed to him on the list of films considered the worst, but it is not sourced. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
Talk:Howard the Duck (film)/Archive 1/GA1
Apparently, out of reluctance to use the plain English term "midget", this version of the article, as opposed to historical versions, suddenly starts talking about "Gale" without doing a proper job of defining who that is.
Maybe if people spent more time on coherence and less on trying to out-PC one another ...
Varlaam (
talk)
05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In the intro paragraph to this article, the last two sentences state the following, "On the DVD commentary for the film one of the commentators claims that George Lucas reassured him that the project would, in twenty years, be seen as a masterpiece. As of the year 2012 the film was still considered one of the worst ever made."
I did happen to see this movie ages ago, and I remember how terrible it was, so it does rank as one of the worst I personally ever saw, now whether this is widely accepted fact or opinion, I'm not sure (I lean towards it being widely accepted - what does Rotten Tomatos have to say?), but anyhow, if the rest of the facts check out, that a DVD commentator did state that Lucas told him that the project would be considered a masterpiece in 20 years, if *that* can be fully verified, should these comments be able to withstand encyclopedic muster? Or should they be nuked/excised as someone recently did? Thoughts?? In general, if there is a little humor as was intended by whoever added those two comments, is that considered outright inappropriate? -- Ysfan ( talk) 08:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have checked this article and I'm afraid it doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. Thus, I have delisted it and downgraded it to B class for now. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This article states: "The appearance of Howard was criticized as being unconvincing due to his poorly functioning mouth, drunkenness, pervertedness, and expressionless face." How can "pervertedness" be an appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 ( talk) 13:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I saw someone reverted an edit, where a user had changed Howard's name to "Howard Duckowitz." I knew it wasn't right, but I wondered if they had gotten this from the mail that Howard tosses onto a chair as the comes into his apartment. So I checked, and in fact his full name can be seen on the mail, and it says Howard T. Duck. It's also listed that way in the closing credits.
Should we change the cast list from "Howard the Duck" to "Howard T. Duck"? If we need an external source for it, IMDB does list Chip, Ed, and all the other actors as playing "Howard T. Duck."
Also, I noticed in that opening scene, that his planet also has two moons. In fact, the shot of the two moons looks like it might be intended to reference the shot of the two suns of Tatooine setting in the first Star Wars movie. Here are some images for comparison.
http://www.dadsbigplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/binary-sunset-wall.jpg
http://www.herogohome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/HowardTwoMoons.jpg
Is that something too trivial to note? Or is something we should only note if we have a source which says it was intentional? CleverTitania ( talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently made this edit, removing mention of the fact that the character Howard the Duck appears in the film Guardians of the Galaxy. The reason for removing it was perfectly clear: there is no evidence connecting the appearance of Howard the Duck in that film to the earlier film Howard the Duck. Unfortunately, I was reverted by a brand new user here, without explanation. I do not find that acceptable. In the absence of any evidence that the appearance of Howard the Duck in Guardians of the Galaxy has anything to do with the appearance of that character in the Howard the Duck movie, it is original research to connect the two. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Did I hear something about this being remade? ApolloCarmb ( talk) 21:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I suspect this movie made more than $10,000,000. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=howardtheduck.htm lists it as having a revenue of almost $38M for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsHolmberg ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering, what is this movie rated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Supernerd 10 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
really? sounds like someone's opinion to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.114.82 ( talk) 06:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
like a lot of people's opinion. honestly, the criticism was unDUCKable. and that's a funnier joke than anything in the movie. 76.27.232.185 ( talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Its budget was 30 million and it grossed 15 million domestic, it could be regarded as a financial flop. This would be more fact based than "worst movie ever made". [1] Gmarquartmsg ( talk) 05:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
References
This article, even after a first pass at policy/guidelines editing and WP:FILMS formatting, continues to be seriously below Wikipedia standards. As it stood, there were extremely large amount of uncited POV and original-research essaying, as well as many WP:DATED vios. I've also commented-out an alleged quote that had no citation other than it ostensibly came from some issue or other of Starlog. The entire article is unreferenced.
I've also removed two inappropriate, unsigned posts on this Talk page, which like Wikipedia article pages, must adhere to policies and guidelines, and serve for discussion of improving the article and not as a general forum for the topic.
Please do not edit this article without first having read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia for a basic understanding of policies and guidelines. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The statement that the film was originally planned as being animated needs a source. Also, I removed the links to Fritz the Cat and Heavy Traffic because I have no idea if that was the tone that Universal would have gone with had the character of Howard been used in an animated feature, or if this was added because fans of the comic books wanted this to be an animated film in the style of those works. If this is sourced as being the original proposed tone, it can be restored. It would seem likely if there was a point in the film's development where George Lucas would not have been involved in the film, but not if Lucas was involved from the start, as he (along with the director and screenwriter) seems to be the main reason why the final film was so commercial in tone. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
This article is shaping up - could be a featured article along the lines of Battlefield Earth. Does anyone have a really good source stating Steve Gerber's opinions of the flick? There's a quote attributed to him on the list of films considered the worst, but it is not sourced. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
Talk:Howard the Duck (film)/Archive 1/GA1
Apparently, out of reluctance to use the plain English term "midget", this version of the article, as opposed to historical versions, suddenly starts talking about "Gale" without doing a proper job of defining who that is.
Maybe if people spent more time on coherence and less on trying to out-PC one another ...
Varlaam (
talk)
05:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In the intro paragraph to this article, the last two sentences state the following, "On the DVD commentary for the film one of the commentators claims that George Lucas reassured him that the project would, in twenty years, be seen as a masterpiece. As of the year 2012 the film was still considered one of the worst ever made."
I did happen to see this movie ages ago, and I remember how terrible it was, so it does rank as one of the worst I personally ever saw, now whether this is widely accepted fact or opinion, I'm not sure (I lean towards it being widely accepted - what does Rotten Tomatos have to say?), but anyhow, if the rest of the facts check out, that a DVD commentator did state that Lucas told him that the project would be considered a masterpiece in 20 years, if *that* can be fully verified, should these comments be able to withstand encyclopedic muster? Or should they be nuked/excised as someone recently did? Thoughts?? In general, if there is a little humor as was intended by whoever added those two comments, is that considered outright inappropriate? -- Ysfan ( talk) 08:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have checked this article and I'm afraid it doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. Thus, I have delisted it and downgraded it to B class for now. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 21 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This article states: "The appearance of Howard was criticized as being unconvincing due to his poorly functioning mouth, drunkenness, pervertedness, and expressionless face." How can "pervertedness" be an appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 ( talk) 13:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I saw someone reverted an edit, where a user had changed Howard's name to "Howard Duckowitz." I knew it wasn't right, but I wondered if they had gotten this from the mail that Howard tosses onto a chair as the comes into his apartment. So I checked, and in fact his full name can be seen on the mail, and it says Howard T. Duck. It's also listed that way in the closing credits.
Should we change the cast list from "Howard the Duck" to "Howard T. Duck"? If we need an external source for it, IMDB does list Chip, Ed, and all the other actors as playing "Howard T. Duck."
Also, I noticed in that opening scene, that his planet also has two moons. In fact, the shot of the two moons looks like it might be intended to reference the shot of the two suns of Tatooine setting in the first Star Wars movie. Here are some images for comparison.
http://www.dadsbigplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/binary-sunset-wall.jpg
http://www.herogohome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/HowardTwoMoons.jpg
Is that something too trivial to note? Or is something we should only note if we have a source which says it was intentional? CleverTitania ( talk) 02:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I recently made this edit, removing mention of the fact that the character Howard the Duck appears in the film Guardians of the Galaxy. The reason for removing it was perfectly clear: there is no evidence connecting the appearance of Howard the Duck in that film to the earlier film Howard the Duck. Unfortunately, I was reverted by a brand new user here, without explanation. I do not find that acceptable. In the absence of any evidence that the appearance of Howard the Duck in Guardians of the Galaxy has anything to do with the appearance of that character in the Howard the Duck movie, it is original research to connect the two. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Did I hear something about this being remade? ApolloCarmb ( talk) 21:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)