Talk:Hannibal (2001 film)

Hannibal (2001 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 29, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Julianne Moore's first time firing a gun?

The bio section of the page claims that "This was the first movie Moore was actually required to fire a gun." and is even backed up by production notes, but Moore was in the 1995 Richard Donner Film "Assassins" where she fires a gun on screen twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.74.111.87 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMEDY???

The categories place this movie in comedy categories! Other than Hannibal Rising, this is the only of the Lecter movies I haven't seen, but could someone make it clear why this is considered a comedy? 71.243.181.204 05:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be considered a black comedy.--CyberGhostface 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Hannibal Lecter films

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)[reply]

Length

Recently, this article has gotten ridiculously long with unneeded information and atrocious spelling and grammar. Can someone please do something about this? I am working on grammar, but I may need help. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More about the ending....

The very end of the film, which shows Hannibal on the airplane with his arm in a sling is supposed to be one of the biggest character revealing elements of the whole series. It's implied that rather than cutting off Clarice's hand, he chopped off his own, which could be considered a display of his love for her. Yet, this is conspicuously absent in the plot summary. Would anyone mind filling it in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stottpie (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes your right - ive added stuff on the romantic 'themes' in the film, under 'themes'. Ridley Scott says in his commentary - its an act if ultimate sacrafice what he does there. He loses his hand. Whataboutbob 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just a thumb (cutting an entire hand to get out of handcuffs seems too stupid thing to do for someone as intelligent as Dr. Lecter))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.32.27 (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Trivia Section

Christopher Reeve was offered and turned down the role of Mason Verger, but he regretted it when Gary Oldman won rave reviews for his performance. Reeve then signed on to play reclusive . Virgil Swann in two episodes of the popular drama show Smallville.

Although the character of Jack Crawford appears as a minor character in the novel, he does not appear in the film, although is mentioned in a deleted scene as having passed away between films.

In a scene inside the Italian police offices, a television screen can be seen in the background with a game of soccer on. The match shown is not of Italian soccer, as one might assume, but is actually an English Premier League game with former Aston Villa player Julian Joachim clearly visible on the screens.

MasterA113 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good one moving the trivia section Whataboutbob 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noticed...

Krendler reads the postcard supposedly written to Clarice and then says, "Sounds like him to me." If you read the card, you can clearly (maybe you have to pause it) see the words "sounds like him to me" as the last sentence. Obviously that wasn't supposed to be on the card. I just thought that was interesting; I wonder if they put it there on purpose. 24.10.97.60 09:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA comment

There are a few minor things that should be addressed before another user reviews this. The movie poster needs a fair use rationale, and go through the article and make sure that all of the inline citations are directly after the punctuation with no spaces in between. Also consider removing a few of the nonfree images, as this article probably has too many to be able to declare fair use. Keep the most relevant ones to the information being discussed. Good job so far, and good luck on the review. --Nehrams2020 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two other problems that should really be addressed. At 66k, it's really questionable whether it's properly focused. It's one thing to have an article this size about fairly important historical topics, but not just one very recent (if currently notable) book-to-film adaptation. The level of detail is at times excruciatingly dull.

The article suffers from a severe case of footnoteitis and quite a bit of quoteamania. That statements like Lecter being a household name needs a separate citation quite frankly makes the article (and Wikipedia) look somewhat stupid; this is not a fact that anyone, unless trying to make a point would question, would question. As for quoting, providing readers with verbatim transcripts of what critics and those involved in the film have said or written makes sense, but it seems as if the article tries to let them tell the entire story instead of properly summarizing the various events. For example, the section on Jodie Foster's involvement could be cut in half and still tell the exact same story, but without terribly dull quotes like "Would definitely be part of it" and "The studio is just back from the holiday and is regrouping based on the news, and has no cohesive game plan at the moment".

Peter ^Isotalo 04:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry person above, but what are you on about? How can an extremely well researched article have "severe case of footnoteitis". It went from "start" to "good articicle nominee" purely on my work, 100%, no debate at all. There are under 2000 good articles in wikipedia. The boring quotes you refer to were quotes taken from reliable news sources emanating from people working on the film. uld you do? Make it up. I quit Wikipedia becuase of people like you. Whataboutbob 12:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND as you can see, length has nothing to do with it. It is broken down into sections, just like a DVD for example, or a book - so you can choose what you want read, or not! Whataboutbob 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-researched, yes, but it's not a good read and there's absolutely no given correlation between the number of footnotes in an article (or the number of times a certain footnote is repeated) and how well-referenced is. This is no different than overuse of, say, images or tables.

The quotes tell a very simple narrative in the form of "person A said X, but then person B said Y, and person C went on to say Z". This makes for very a very unappealing read and leaves the reader wondering why a relatively uncomplicated story was told in excruciating detail. It's not a matter of "making it up", but summarize in your own words. That the quotes happen to be reliable or true does not mean that they're either interesting or have to be included. That's supposed to be an editor's job, even on Wikipedia. Think of it as editing out mediocre footage from a film or a book, even if that content might mean the article gets bigger. Just like with footnotes, quantity does not equal quality.

As for length, an article is a whole. Paragraphs don't magically split into X amount of sub-articles just because you put a section heading over them. Give the reader a break and avoid writing articles that are designed after what your peers might find interesting. As an enthusiast, you should in general assume that the average reader is interested in roughly half the material you wish to include in an article, especially when working on an article about a very narrow topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

This article easily fulfills the GA criteria with its extensive citing, comprehensive citing, and decent quality of prose. Suggestions for improvement: check the quotes in the Themes section and make sure the syntax/grammar/flow is correct - I wasn't sure the proper format for multiple quotations like that so I left them alone. --Meowist 04:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

GA article huh! My days and stupid amount of hours working on this must have paid off then. From a "start" to "GA". Whataboutbob 13:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK

It should be joint origin from the UK, seeing as the director and main star are British

I might be wrong, but I think country of origin is based on where the production company is located and where major production work is done. A British director and star does not make a movie British, it just means they worked on a movie made elsewhere. -Etoile 17:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Station Carousel

I was surprised by the article's implication that the carousel at DC's Union Station was placed there because Ridley Scott requested it. It seems more likely that the movie made good use of the "Turn of the Century" carousel, a temporary Union Station exhibit sponsored by The History Channel. [1] -Etoile 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hannibal knife.jpg

Image:Hannibal knife.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 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 10:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ridanddino.jpg

Image:Ridanddino.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 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 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ridleygram Hannibal.jpg

Image:Ridleygram Hannibal.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 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 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Clariceandhanniballift23.jpg

Image:Clariceandhanniballift23.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 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 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alovemoment562.jpg

Image:Alovemoment562.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 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 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Krendler&Claricehannibal.gif

Image:Krendler&Claricehannibal.gif 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 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 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Julianneoncar45.gif

Image:Julianneoncar45.gif 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 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 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pazzicafeshades.jpg

Image:Pazzicafeshades.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 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 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brain eating?

The whole thing is absurd. Humans who eat human brain will get Kuru (disease) and certainly an educated man like Lecter would know this. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. My understanding is that the brain that's eaten must be infected with prions for the disease to be tranmitted. Most brains don't contain prions, so he's pretty safe. In the same way, not all people that eat cow brain get CJD (harldy any of them in fact), because not all cows have BSE. Furthermore the wiki artice on kuru states that merely eating the brain matter is usually insuffient to cause infection. So all in all brain eating is pretty safe so long as one doesn't make a habit of it. Grcaldwell (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safe for the person doing the eating, mind you. Lampman (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point is of having this section at all since it's hardly relevant and entirely wrong. Shiggity (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

The article is generally well referenced, with WP:RS. There are some issues with the structure of the article, and other minor things, that could still be improved:

"Plot" – see tag
"Cast" – needs discussion of individual characters
Different quotation styles are used
"It's not exactly a romance there is that element. There's that erotic element in the story. I'm told. Ridley says it comes across very clearly." – this quote needs a citation
Gross – these number are almost always misleading, since they do not figure in inflation
Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes need refs
"Differences from the novel" – this section is inflated and crufty
I notice that a lot of pictures have been removed due to lack of fair use rationale. The article could really benefit from a picture or two.

Lampman (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in infobox

There are entirely too many names in the infobox. It should be reduced to the 2-4 legitimate stars, like Hopkins, Moore, Liotta, etc. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Oldman is credited in at least one version

... that is, the Blu-ray copy within "The Hannibal Lecter Collection." Not sure about other releases, since this is the only one I own. It probably should be mentioned as the article states Oldman decided to go unbilled and presumably did so in the theatrical release. Shiggity (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Chapters Section

To User:Dayewalker I added this section becuse it is actually useful it tells the reader of the chapters in the movie and provided ample detail. it does not encrouch on th eplot section. i added it as a sub- section, futhermore it is also hidden. wpuld you please suggest why this section should not be in teh article.

Kind regards User:InExcelsisDeo

We do not go into chapter-by-chapter detail, nor do we generally put "in-progress" type content into an article, nor do we hide large blocks of in-article content. Please read WP:FILMPLOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), and if you would like to work on content like this in an "in-progress" manner please do it in your userspace rather than in the middle of an article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for that, i shall finish the section onmy user page then place it back. To --IllaZilla why is this section unwarranted please provide detail. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by InExcelsisDeo (talk • contribs) 03:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's indiscriminate detail. —Mike Allen 03:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why must you answer a question with a question, dont reply that your question warranted further question. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by InExcelsisDeo (talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't readd this - it will continue to get reverted, regardless. We don't do that sort of break down here. WP:FILMPLOT, WP:Writing about fiction, MOS:FILM all cover how we do detail plots in film articles. If there are points in the plot that need to be expanded upon, we can discuss that. If there are reliable sources covering some kind of analysis based on the DVD chapter titles (which would be odd since it was also release on VHS but ok) then that is also something that could be discussed. But I can guarantee you that any similar section will be deleted, whether it is work-shopped in user space or not. Millahnna (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo the links above, InExcelsisDeo, please read those. A plot section should be a summary, there's absolutely no need for DVD chapters and excessive unsourced detail. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth perusing WP:PLOTSUM too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in infobox

I understand the English and the Italian, but when in the film do we hear German and Japanese? I do not recall any parts of the film that take place in those countries, no any characters who speak those languages, certainly not in any significant manner. Unless someone tells me something different, I am going to remove these languages. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back through the history I see that the languages were added by HenryShepherd last December without explanation. So, I simply removed them. If I am incorrect, as I said, someone let me know. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hannibal (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hannibal (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226192110/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035937p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035937p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hannibal (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917042236/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035935p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/035/035935p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

VictimOfEntropy , it's clear you have a problem with my edits to this article and other articles related to the character of Hannibal Lecter. Based on this message on another editor's page, you suspect I have "a vendetta against the novels and/or Thomas Harris himself". Let me reassure you that this isn't the case. I'm just a guy who edits Wikipedia pages about movies and pop culture. I've been doing it for about 10 years, and my goal is only to improve the encyclopaedia, primarily through sourcing and copyediting. That's it.

So, this article. Let's start with the plot summary. I could write a lot about why I made these edits, but I'll try to keep it brief.

First: I think my edit removes superfluous words. For example: a herd of wild boars bred ~~specifically~~ for this purpose as opposed to bred unspecifically for the purpose? I'm not sure why you'd fight to keep these words.

Second, and more importantly, my edit removes numerous instances of personal interpretation. Per WP:FILMPLOT, "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims". We should instead describe events simply and leave the reader to draw their own interpretations. For example: Lecter is later shown on a flight with his own boxed lunch, his bandaged arm in a sling. As he prepares to eat his meal, including what is assumed to be a piece of Krendler's brain Assumed by who? If we agree that this is definitely a piece of brain then I'm fine with writing "including a piece of brain". But if there's some doubt, or doubt over whose brain it is (this is not specified), then things like "assumed to be..." are just weaselly ways of sneaking personal interpretation in there. Do you see the point I'm making here? Popcornfud (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making a point, you are making unnecessary and detrimental edits to these articles that I have been guarding for a year and a half, as I previously mentioned. I do not make edits to Wikipedia for fun like you do, I only make them when they are important or obviously necessary in order to accurately portray something or to fix grammatical errors that I happen to see. I already explained why your edits were wrong, and the fact that you keep persisting is very troubling. I don’t want to waste my time like this trying to prevent you from messing up these pages. There was nothing wrong with how it was before, and then you misattributed a quote, claiming that it was said by Jonathan Demme when it was actually said by Thomas Harris, and claimed that someone worked on the film whom actually didn’t, among other things. Please stop. I do not want to waste my time monitoring you. You’ve been making me miserable these last few days since you suddenly showed up on the Thomas Harris-related pages that I protect. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned about your language around "guarding" and "protecting" these articles. It sounds like you might feel that you WP:OWN them. Popcornfud (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is blatantly violating WP:OWN. It is nonsensical to revert wholesale changes made to the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a habit of getting things wrong about Thomas Harris and his creations and the things which were inspired by him/them. You admitted that you were wrong after wasting so much of my time on the Harris page already—let’s skip ahead to that part this time, and then you can just stop making frivolous edits (on pages related to Thomas Harris, at least). VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about saying something was uncited, yes. I apologise for that. If my edits on this article here contain mistakes certainly they should be corrected. Popcornfud (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik and Popcornfud: No, I just protect them from people like you that add false information to them or remove true information from them. I’ve been monitoring them, seeing what edits are made to them and evaluating the truth of those edits for a year and a half. I understand that you get a kick out of messing around with Wikipedia for no reason, but this is supposed to be an informational database that educates people, and it matters when you keep deteriorating the information on these pages that I keep a watch on because I am the best person to do so because I am an expert on this particular subject matter. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve ever pretended to “own” anything, and all of the jargon that you’re using is ridiculous. I don’t play around on Wikipedia, this isn’t fun for me—I’m seriously just trying to make sure that these things are presented as accurately as possible on this informational database. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve *never. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You blatantly admitted your ownership of this article earlier. You said "I have been guarding for a year and a half" and that you "monitor" changes for the truth and assume bad faith. Beware that WP:OWN is a policy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last paragraph, I am not sure if I support either version of explaining that Hannibal does not cut off her hand. I prefer VictimOfEntropy's explanation a little more, but wouldn't mind tightening that language. I find Popcornfud's trimming in other parts of the plot summary to be acceptable. Not sure why "Lecter then returns to the United States" is taken out, though? Seems appropriate to indicate where he will be for ensuing events. And I think "brutally disfigured" seems like an appropriate description since "disfigured" by itself sounds kind of mild. Alternatives could be "horrifically disfigured" or "facially disfigured" (can't remember if other parts of him were disfigured). Thoughts on these details? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing those changes. I removed "Lecter returns to the United States" because I felt it was clear that, based on the following paragraph saying "Lecter lures Starling to Union Station", that Lecter had returned. I changed "brutally disfigured" to just "disfigured" because I think if a cannibal serial killer disfigures someone we have a pretty good idea that it was not a gentle disfigurement and I don't think the degree of disfigurement is really important. (As a general rule with editing, I try to anticipate what readers unfamiliar with the subject might wonder if we leave detail out; I doubt readers would read that Hannibal Lecter had disfigured someone and think, "But to what extent was this disfigurement? Was it a brutal disfigurement? I'm so lost.") I don't feel strongly about either of those changes and don't mind if we restore them.

Regarding the hand being cut off, I feel that any any syntax based around "She is soon seen to..." or "He is later revealed to have..." etc is never the most direct way of summarising a plot. (See another example just after that: "Lecter is later shown on a flight", which can just become "On a flight, Lecter...") My version might not be the clearest solution here, though. Popcornfud (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to reply directly to Erik’s comments, but it makes no sense how he is saying that my watching what edits are made to a page equals believing that I “own” it, and I am tired of his lies. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: Did you see what I said about how you misattributed Harris’s quote to Demme? That really needs to be undone. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VictimOfEntropy, I have found that corrected it, thanks. If there are other mistakes please point them out. Popcornfud (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "mutated" wild boars

The article's plot section talks about "a herd of mutated wild boars bred for this purpose". This is not accurate. When Lecter is captured, brought to Verger's mansion and comes face to face with him, Verger's first words to Lecter are "Hylochoerus meinertzhageni" which is the scientific name for the Giant forest hog. --Emanuel Laertes (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]