Jump to content

Talk:Hard Target

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHard Target 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
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Comment

[edit]

I have to say the Hard Target is one of the funniest films I have ever seem. Of course John Woo can't have intended his film to be viewed in this way, but it really is difficult not to laugh at it. Van Damme suits the role really well however, and catching a snake before punching it must take a lot of skill. "I'm leaving a little surprise for my firends."

Try watching this film in New Orleans. This is probably the funniest of the numerous geographically inaccurate films set in the city of New Orleans. We don't talk like cajuns and downtown New Orleans isn't anywhere near the swamp. That's what Lafeyette is like. And by the way, punching a plastic snake is pretty easy. We catch flying plastic snakes all the time at Mardi Gras. It's a lot easier than catching a coconut. WH.


Who wrote this I say? Is this supposed to be here? You guys said that the Trivia is discouraged. And to remove inappropiate content there. I'm thinking about changing the part about Lance Henrikson being set on fire, and deleting that part about the soundtrack, because I think it's not necessary. What do you guys think? --Pix88 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

[edit]

Sorry you guys, I already commented on this, but I figured it wasn't the proper way to do it so I put in a new section. (I'm new here!)

You guys want the whole trivia section removed? --Pix88 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Just removed Trivia... now it's cleaner! --Pix88 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van Cleef

[edit]

Arnold Vosloo's character has the name Van Cleaf. I changed all the spellings to reflect this except of course for the reference to Lee Van Cleef who is represented in the article as being - how would we say? - un hommage.

I watched this film last night and was struck by the Cleaf spelling of the name in the credits. However, I visited Hard Target on IMDB and discovered that the spelling of the character's name is Cleef.

I will rerun the film in DVD format again to check the spelling and revert if necessary.

If anyone already knows better please revert the spellings now. I may be some time.

Porthugh (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmovie and the New York Times review say "Van Cleaf" so I'm going to assume that's correct. I don't have the dvd so best you check. If it turns out to be Van Cleaf, this is good proof that imdb isn't always correct. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hard Target/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  • Okay, the article is good to me. WP:REFS are neat.
  • It would be better to put the templates down the box office number one films.

Cheers, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Opinion

[edit]

Ref #32 [1] leads to a login page so does not support the assertion, needs formatting to indicate that this is a subscription archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should pay more attention. I didn't know this was even reviewed. That's weird about the subscription. It doesn't say that for me and I don't have a subscription. Hmm. Either way, I've added your notice. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • Prose OK, I made a couple of minor copy-edits. One statement in the Post-production section doesn't make sense to me: Woo was contractually obligated to release a NC-17 rating by Universal Pictures. When submitting the film to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), it was judged as too violent and intense for an R rating and received an NC-17 rating. This appears contradictory. Woo was contracted to make a NC-17 film and got that rating - so what is the sentence about? Green tickY
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • References all live, all check out. I assume good faith for print sources.
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • All sources appear reliable
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Genres additions

[edit]

Could we get a good source for those extra genre additions? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hard Target. 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) 06:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hard Target. 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) 10:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hard_Target&oldid=1207546733"