![]() | Manhunter (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I rented Anchor Bay's "director's cut" disc when it came out, and it suuuuuuure looked like a work print ... with a bad sound mix, crude credits, and that awful-terrible scene of Graham going to see "family #3" after catching Dollarhyde. I didn't think it was a "director's cut" such much as pre-release work print. Does anyone watching this page know of any cites or references discussing this? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Hannibal Lecter films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- CyberGhostface 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed a mention of the added Lecter scenes in "Red Dragon".
This is certainly something that happened in "Red Dragon" but it's also something that occured in "Manhunter" as well.
In both cases there are scenes that played in some sort of less-personal way that were translated into a more cinematic literal exchange between characters.
In "Manhunter" the scene where Will Graham and Hannibal Lektor (ugh) talk on the phone is based upon a scene in the book where Graham reads a letter from Lecter. That's obviously not very cinematic and thus "Manhunter" became guilty of adding a Lecter scene to the movie 16 years before "Red Dragon" did it.
Since they're both guilty of it (and converting such uncinematic exchanges is pretty common when adapting a book) there's really no reason to even point it out in the article. GuruAskew 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lecktor02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In 2002, another adaptation of the book, titled Red Dragon, was released. It was more faithful to the novel. - I have removed "It was more faithful to the novel", as said statement is utter rubbish and is an opinion, not a fact. The rest of the article (box office) still needs work done, as the next sentence goes on to provide more speculatory opinions. Many, myself included, would see the film "Red Dragon" as killing the series - as an avid Harris fan I found his most recent book "Hannibal Rising" to be bland, uninteresting, and filled with lowest-common-denominator two-dimensional characters, not the rich fleshed out personalities I'm used to. While I say this here, I don't put it in the article because it's an opinion. But as for Manhunter vs Red Dragon; while the latter did do some very specific things more faithfully, overall the main characters did not remotely resemble the novel characters, how anyone could consider this to be "more faithful" baffles me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.137.70 ( talk) 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Manhunter michael mann film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this section incoherent? It looks like someone cut and pasted parts of sentences from three separate sections, and randomly collaged them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.129.93 ( talk) 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The Silence of the Lambs is not in the same cannon series as Manhunter, so why it is listed as following this movie? The Silence of the Lambs is the first in a trilogy seperate from this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 ( talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I will review sometime today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is just a basic once over the article. I did not read any section in-depth. I just wanted you to have a rough idea of things that could use improving. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Blood in the Moonlight: Michael Mann and Information Age Cinema. Can't figure out what to do with it yet but it seems useful so I'm reminding myself where to find it. GRAPPLE X 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to trim the number of actors listed in the 'Starring' field of the infobox down to just four - Petersen, Noonan, Farina and Cox. It makes sense to cut it to a minimum number and let the prose list the other names; however, other film articles have had bitterness between editors about how to use their infoboxes, so I felt it would be best to get a consensus here first. Everyone who would be removed is mentioned in the article's prose, so no information would actually be lost in doing so, but it keeps the infobox neater and looks more streamlined. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Wanting to establish a consensus on how to refer to the cast in the article. Bluerules, who has a history of vandalising film articles when consensus or policy disagree with his narrow vision, is convinced that stripping out information on cast members who didn't receive top billing is the correct course of action - because he says so, of course. I've already used edit summaries and his user talk page to explain WP:LEAD and attempt to deter further disruptive removals. Now, given that the article's state before his disruptions began was the result of a GA review and several peer reviews, I've assumed that to be an implied consensus on behalf of those involved that there were no problems listing the most prominent actors in a film in the lead section, but now I'm seeking to find a more vocal consensus. Should policy on WP:LEAD be adhered to, allowing the lead to adequately summarise its parent article, or should studio billing dictate wikipedia policy? It's obvious where myself and the problem editor stand on the issue, so I'm asking anyone else to chime in to form a solid consensus. Thanks in advance to those who express their opinion. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It was already very well written. Just one suggestion before going to FAC: maybe try to merge the first paragraph of the "Reception" section into the "Box office" section, since they duplicate one another to a large extent. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Grapple - Regarding producer credits - I tried to prevent this narrow policy of not including anyone beyond Producers in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive Producers, but no one came over to back me up at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Should George Lucas be listed as Executive Producer in the infobox for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?. You seemed to lean the other way yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Executive producers in the info box, again... If this policy is to be followed, Dino De Laurentiis will need to be deleted from the Manhunter infobox, as only Richard Roth had "Produced by" credit. I earlier gave it a shot for inclusion by indicating he was an uncredited Executive Producer (arguably the most accurate title for his role on the film), but DDL actually took no producer credit at all. It seems we both thought he had enough to do with producing the film that he should be listed, but the three or four claiming consensus over there would no doubt disagree. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Brought Brian Cox into greater prominence? -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the cast table back to its prior form—the introduction of a table doesn't add anything or present the information in a different manner, simply boxing it in table cells, and with the table not meeting WP:ACCESS or MOS:DTT then I see no reason to make the change. Even if it were formatted in a screen-reader friendly manner I don't actually see what the upside is intended to be but I'm open to hearing the intention behind it. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have protected this page owing to the edit warring going on between Niteshift36 and Grapple X. Considering this is the same link that edit warring took place over last time, I suggest both of you discuss it rather than find yourselves at the end of a block hammer.. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is his name spelled Lecktor throughout this article? Is that our mistake or is he actually called Lecktor not Lecter in this film? Renard Migrant ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The film does not mention anything about Hannibal Lecktor eating his victims. According to Graham, Lecktor killed college girls in brutal ways. 86.130.49.195 ( talk) 19:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Manhunter (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I rented Anchor Bay's "director's cut" disc when it came out, and it suuuuuuure looked like a work print ... with a bad sound mix, crude credits, and that awful-terrible scene of Graham going to see "family #3" after catching Dollarhyde. I didn't think it was a "director's cut" such much as pre-release work print. Does anyone watching this page know of any cites or references discussing this? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Template:Hannibal Lecter films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- CyberGhostface 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed a mention of the added Lecter scenes in "Red Dragon".
This is certainly something that happened in "Red Dragon" but it's also something that occured in "Manhunter" as well.
In both cases there are scenes that played in some sort of less-personal way that were translated into a more cinematic literal exchange between characters.
In "Manhunter" the scene where Will Graham and Hannibal Lektor (ugh) talk on the phone is based upon a scene in the book where Graham reads a letter from Lecter. That's obviously not very cinematic and thus "Manhunter" became guilty of adding a Lecter scene to the movie 16 years before "Red Dragon" did it.
Since they're both guilty of it (and converting such uncinematic exchanges is pretty common when adapting a book) there's really no reason to even point it out in the article. GuruAskew 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Lecktor02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In 2002, another adaptation of the book, titled Red Dragon, was released. It was more faithful to the novel. - I have removed "It was more faithful to the novel", as said statement is utter rubbish and is an opinion, not a fact. The rest of the article (box office) still needs work done, as the next sentence goes on to provide more speculatory opinions. Many, myself included, would see the film "Red Dragon" as killing the series - as an avid Harris fan I found his most recent book "Hannibal Rising" to be bland, uninteresting, and filled with lowest-common-denominator two-dimensional characters, not the rich fleshed out personalities I'm used to. While I say this here, I don't put it in the article because it's an opinion. But as for Manhunter vs Red Dragon; while the latter did do some very specific things more faithfully, overall the main characters did not remotely resemble the novel characters, how anyone could consider this to be "more faithful" baffles me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.137.70 ( talk) 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Manhunter michael mann film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is this section incoherent? It looks like someone cut and pasted parts of sentences from three separate sections, and randomly collaged them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.129.93 ( talk) 05:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The Silence of the Lambs is not in the same cannon series as Manhunter, so why it is listed as following this movie? The Silence of the Lambs is the first in a trilogy seperate from this movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 ( talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I will review sometime today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
This is just a basic once over the article. I did not read any section in-depth. I just wanted you to have a rough idea of things that could use improving. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Blood in the Moonlight: Michael Mann and Information Age Cinema. Can't figure out what to do with it yet but it seems useful so I'm reminding myself where to find it. GRAPPLE X 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to trim the number of actors listed in the 'Starring' field of the infobox down to just four - Petersen, Noonan, Farina and Cox. It makes sense to cut it to a minimum number and let the prose list the other names; however, other film articles have had bitterness between editors about how to use their infoboxes, so I felt it would be best to get a consensus here first. Everyone who would be removed is mentioned in the article's prose, so no information would actually be lost in doing so, but it keeps the infobox neater and looks more streamlined. Thoughts? GRAPPLE X 21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Wanting to establish a consensus on how to refer to the cast in the article. Bluerules, who has a history of vandalising film articles when consensus or policy disagree with his narrow vision, is convinced that stripping out information on cast members who didn't receive top billing is the correct course of action - because he says so, of course. I've already used edit summaries and his user talk page to explain WP:LEAD and attempt to deter further disruptive removals. Now, given that the article's state before his disruptions began was the result of a GA review and several peer reviews, I've assumed that to be an implied consensus on behalf of those involved that there were no problems listing the most prominent actors in a film in the lead section, but now I'm seeking to find a more vocal consensus. Should policy on WP:LEAD be adhered to, allowing the lead to adequately summarise its parent article, or should studio billing dictate wikipedia policy? It's obvious where myself and the problem editor stand on the issue, so I'm asking anyone else to chime in to form a solid consensus. Thanks in advance to those who express their opinion. GRAPPLE X 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It was already very well written. Just one suggestion before going to FAC: maybe try to merge the first paragraph of the "Reception" section into the "Box office" section, since they duplicate one another to a large extent. -- Stfg ( talk) 14:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Grapple - Regarding producer credits - I tried to prevent this narrow policy of not including anyone beyond Producers in the infobox at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive Producers, but no one came over to back me up at Template talk:Infobox film#RfC: Should George Lucas be listed as Executive Producer in the infobox for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?. You seemed to lean the other way yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Executive producers in the info box, again... If this policy is to be followed, Dino De Laurentiis will need to be deleted from the Manhunter infobox, as only Richard Roth had "Produced by" credit. I earlier gave it a shot for inclusion by indicating he was an uncredited Executive Producer (arguably the most accurate title for his role on the film), but DDL actually took no producer credit at all. It seems we both thought he had enough to do with producing the film that he should be listed, but the three or four claiming consensus over there would no doubt disagree. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Brought Brian Cox into greater prominence? -- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the cast table back to its prior form—the introduction of a table doesn't add anything or present the information in a different manner, simply boxing it in table cells, and with the table not meeting WP:ACCESS or MOS:DTT then I see no reason to make the change. Even if it were formatted in a screen-reader friendly manner I don't actually see what the upside is intended to be but I'm open to hearing the intention behind it. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have protected this page owing to the edit warring going on between Niteshift36 and Grapple X. Considering this is the same link that edit warring took place over last time, I suggest both of you discuss it rather than find yourselves at the end of a block hammer.. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is his name spelled Lecktor throughout this article? Is that our mistake or is he actually called Lecktor not Lecter in this film? Renard Migrant ( talk) 20:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The film does not mention anything about Hannibal Lecktor eating his victims. According to Graham, Lecktor killed college girls in brutal ways. 86.130.49.195 ( talk) 19:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)