Talk:Hollywoodland

Irony

Affleck himself played Daredevil in two films (with the deleted scene from Elektra).

12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Trailer

Does anybody know what the music was played in the trailer for the movie? Good stuff.

Verkhovensky 05:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know; at first I thought the music as the camera was going through the clouds was part of the Adventures of Superman show! How stupid am I? --Jonathan.Bruce 12:38 17 Sept 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish

Who wrote this page, exactly? This is a personal review, rather than anything helpful.

I think it is a good start to a good article, but that is just my opinion.

Verkhovensky 21:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Burned?

At one point in the plot section, is says that Adrien Brody's character is burned at one point. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall him being burned in the movie...

Verkhovensky 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the movie, and I didn't see one scene of him getting burned at all. Hope that helps! --Jonathan.Bruce 09:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambig?

Could this article possibly need a notation somewhere guiding those in search of history on the Hollywood Sign, which originally read "Hollywoodland"? Just a thought. — ArkansasTraveler 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I might suggest moving the article to "Hollywoodland (film)." As of today, the movie is what resonates in the public consciousness, but in a few years from now the term "Hollywoodland" will again be synonymous with the failed real estate venture (and the sign which bore its name) rather than this movie - unless it cleans up at the awards, of course. Wencer 20:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents. If you are in Southern California, Hollywood to be specific, and take North Beachwood Blvd north from the Hollywood Freeway you'll eventually find yourself at the entrance to a small old community. At the entrance to this community are the remains of a gate. The pillars are made of red brick. On the right hand pillar you'll find a bronze plaque. On this plaque is the name "Hollywoodland", the original name of the development, along with the developer names and the dates of construction. Wjbean

Detective

Milo speriglio is here but there was also a lawyer who helped, you people deleted his name under trivia, his mom hired.

Plot Summary

I really think this article needs a comprehensive plot summary. Verkhovensky 02:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The film presents several possible scenarios for Reeves' death, but it does not introduce any new theories, resolve the murder, or point to any particular theory as being "right."

I think this statement is misleading - while the film does present different scenarios, they're played out in the order that the Louis Simo character comes to believe them, and by the end of the movie, it's pretty clear that the last scenario (that Reeves was tired of nobody taking him seriously and sick of having to work so hard at escaping the confines of public expectations as to what he was capable of as an actor, leading him to take his own life) is the scenario which Louis Simo (and the director) accept as the far most likely scenario. 75.45.247.103 10:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)75.45.247.103

I believe that there are a few errors in the plot description. “Simo learns from a former colleague on the police force that the Reeves suicide has aspects that the cops don't want to touch.” I believe that they were not cops they were a more prosperous detective agency in LA, where Simo used to work. In the scene immediately after the diner scene Simo “pitches” Reeve’s mother and she asked if he worked for “Mr. Harris”. Simo says no but that he was “an operative for the agency” previously. Later it is shown that the agency is also working for Eddie Mannix, they beat up Simo in his apartment and they also catch him at Mannix’s house and restrain Simo while Eddie is talking to him. So I would change the plot description to reflect that it was not the police that gave him the lead but rather a detective agency which Simo had worked for. Also, a few points that I am not certain about:
1. What was Simo fired for by the detective agency? He apparently had taken the fall for his partner on something that was accidentally released to the press?
2. When Simo meets with the actual police detective, one-on-one, is it the detective that gives him the files of newspaper clippings? And what do they say. They seem to be referring to Mrs. Mannix but in regards to a previous crime against someone other than Reeves?
3. At the end in the 3rd “death scene” it does seem to point towards suicide but in point of fact, the lens zooms in on Reeves then it shows the outside of the house and a flash and a bang. It implies suicide but does not even show Reeves taking the gun out of the drawer.
Bencostello (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office and Critical Reception

Some of the statements seem to lack the neutrality expected of an encyclopedia article, especially the one about Brody being miscast.

Verkhovensky 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a lot of this opinion stuff, but someone came back in and re-added it. I'm reverting again, but maybe my notes on the revisions will clarify that an encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts, and not a personal review or opinion. Rray 05:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

This page is degenerating into a cesspool of trivia. I am all for notable trivia (oxymoron? beside the point...), but I certainly think that trivia ought to be cited. This practice in and of itself will eliminate a good deal of non-notable trivia.

Verkhovensky 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And as for the current little trivia scuffle, if the trivia can be verified by "any book" or "any expert" that should make it particularly easy to cite, should it not? And I think it hardly bears repeating that the onus for citation lies with the editor that originally added the information. I repeated it anyway, but whatever.

Verkhovensky 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that most of the trivia could be deleted. Anything notable should be added to the main body of the article, and the rest gotten rid of. I could work on this myself, but I don't know when I'll have time. Rray 06:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the triva needs to be reorganized into subsections of the main article. The Warner's legal scuffle involving the title, usage of the "S" etc., are all intrinsic to the history of this movie being made, etc.Gnrlotto 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hollywoodland

Ok, you mean this trivia: According to Hollywood Kryptonite book, the movie does not mention the exhibition match Reeves was scheduled with Archie Moore on June 17th - 2 rounds, 2 minutes bouts. He was also scheduled to attend HS graduation of his friend's son, also not covered in the movie.

I know, but let's talk about it... first of all, ok put it there, so it does not get reversed.... but hollywoodland should have that as well, the above statement is self explanatory.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.170 (talk • contribs) .

Regarding the trivia, there are countless facts that the movie doesn't cover; it would be impossible to list them all. The article should cover the subject of what the movie includes, not all of the things it excludes. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) after your input. Rray 05:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

By that logic Saving Private Ryan, a film about the front in Europe during WWII should have, "Does not include scenes depicting characters fighting on the Pacific Front," in its trivia section. Star Wars: Episode 4 should mention that the film doesn't include Ewoks. Superman Returns doesn't include Braniac or Bizarro Superman, etc. This film is made whole cloth out of a lot of Reeves sources. The only way that "trivia" would be relevant would be if this film were a direct adaptation of "Hollywood Kryptonite." But it isn't so that's not of concern. You need to learn that "not including something" is not the same thing as "leaving something out."Gnrlotto 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is trivia, Superman and Kryptonite go hand in hand and I believe by deleting information about that, you are killing good information for others to know, also I suggest you keep your hands off good links.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by 64.107.1.251 (talk • contribs) .

This article isn't about Superman OR Kryptonite; it's about the movie Hollywoodland. Not only is the link you added inappropriate, it's arrogant of you to make it the first link in the list. (Surely you'd agree that the official site for the movie deserves to be the first in a list of links?) At any rate, cluttering articles with irrelevant links only reduces the value of the encyclopedia. Rray 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are hopeless, i am no longer touching that, so be it, if that's what you think, stay away from links, i am warning you for the last time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.78 (talk • contribs)

Please review the external links policy if you're confused about what are appropriate links to add or not. (Don't add links to blogs is one example.) You might also review Wikipedia's guidelines on etiquette. You'll have a much more enjoyable experience as part of the community if you participate here in the spirit of things. (Saying stuff like "I am warning you for the last time." isn't really in the spirit of being civil.) Rray 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I realized the link i posted was blog, you should have told me that is against policy, if it is. By the way do you know any good administrators. The only think those time wasters know is to add... ip of the user, but cannot reply.

Thanks - the guidelines for editing on the Wikipedia are available at the links above (at least in terms of adding external links), and they in turn link to several more pages of guidelines. All the guidelines and policies are written by the community, so they're usually well-written and entertaining to read, so I encourage you to have some fun and have a look at them. Good luck to you. Rray 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize that the reverting of your links came off to you as a personal attack, but the editors really do have the best interests of Wikipedia and of this article in mind. I do believe, however, that it is certainly well recommended to review Wikipedia policies before taking edits from other users personally. Verkhovensky 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Michael T. Bannon Review"

I'd like to get other opinions on this external link: hxxp://www.onifc.com/films/42031/show.htm More About the Movie and a Review by Michael T. Bannon]. This seems like a really generic review, and I don't think it adds any value to the article. Maybe we can reach a consensus on the discussion page regarding whether or not it's appropriate to add to the article and delete it if we agree that it's not?

In reading the guidelines for external links, the first thing I see is that external links should be kept to a minimum. It seems as if this article already has a lot of external links. A little later in the guidelines it indicates that links should be "useful". I don't see much of use in the article linked to, since a synopsis of the movie is already available in the Wikipedia article. Links to "professional reviews" are encouraged, but I didn't get the impression that this was a professional review. I'd rather avoid an edit war and get some other opinions regarding this particular link since it seems to me to be a low quality resource and should be deleted. Rray 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did not make any mistakes in spelling above, but yea, ask others about my link, let's see if it's ok or not. Now the call me hollywoodland troll because i tried to fix few things and mix me with others. But yea Rray, again, let's vote on it.

Just to clarify, I wrote that we should discuss it, not vote on it. Majority rule isn't what we're looking for here; consensus is.

One thing you could do, if you're interested in having this link stay as part of this article, is explain:

• Why you think this link should be added.
• What additional value this link adds to the article.
• Why this link might be useful.
• Why this link might be considered a "professional review".
• Why this link has any place in an encyclopedia article.

Continuing to repeat that it's a good link and shouldn't be deleted doesn't increase anyone's understanding of your desire to see the link added to the page.

Also, it would be really helpful if you would sign your comments on these talk pages. Rray 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will get back to you, those are all the questions, what link are you talking about, there are few, if you go under history i explained why, i am deeply hurt, hopefully you will be on my site, they created a page about me which is 90% false anyways, but it's not nice and even names of people i was associated with they reveal. Anyways, i love your reply, not too many like that dude. -Gordon If you look under history, not all the links, one was about talk, so i agree, it should go, all i am saying, the last link i included deals with other links, a link to links on hollywoodland, certainly it belongs there, but you can not grasp that. Nor anything else like this crazy dude srothra. there are no good links there. But, i am awaiting reply. - Gordon

I suggest adding more links, the page is missing lots of information.

What links do you suggest adding, and what information is missing? Not every article needs an external links section, but this particular article already has 7 external links, which seems like quite a lot to me, actually. See Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Rray 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Be quit, stop using poor excuses with the above links, i included a very credible link, you do not want it there, becaue you did not check on it in the first place, which was authentic you know. Your links are simply making wikipedia more of a toilet that it is, sure wiki is not place for links depositories, but a good link should remain there, it all depands what people other users have to deal with, for example your kind.

Ok, here's the www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hollywoodland/links.php very popular, links to other links, we already have one rottentomatoes link and nobody cares about it, then again, it only talks about this movie, only one link, you and others want to tell me or anybody else who may agree with me, that the link above does not comply with the rules, what rules, which rules, the ones you and your kind recently created? My case, remember what happened, that's why I said what I said above.- ...Gordon

The URL you're suggesting is a menu option on the page we already have listed for Rotten Tomatoes. (The Rotten Tomatoes page that is listed is the hub for all of their pages on this subject, including the links page. It wouldn't make sense to link to all of the subpages of that section, but it does make sense to link to their main hub for the subject.) I hope that it makes more sense now why the link you're suggesting isn't appropriate or necessary. Rray 21:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then show me the link or better yet replace that one rotten tomato which is rotten with my link, i checked the wiki policy and I am not, nor does my link violate anything, it's not a blog as well.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "my" links, since I haven't added any links to the article. But if you want to add a link here, and there is disagreement with other Wikipedians about whether or not it should be added, you should be able to state your case as to why it adds value. Saying that it's a "very credible" link isn't much of an endorsement since it's not a specific reason why it should be added.

If you think that the Wikipedia is a toilet, I'm sure you might be able to find a community online that's more to your liking. I'm not sure what your motivation for participating in a project you don't like would be, but to each his own, I guess.

And, yes, I did check the link before deleting it. Why would I delete a link if I hadn't visited the page to see if was useful first? That's a bizarre assumption to make. Rray 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this nonsense again.Gnrlotto 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Barbell Man?

The thing I really want to know is, what was up with that creepy old guy (Eric Kolder) who was always at the motel lifting a barbell with his right arm? If a movie shows a 70-year-old guy with a tan-in-a-can three times, there has to be some significance.

-Special Penguin 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe introducing this character that seems to have significance only to the film-maker and audience, but not to the rest of the cast, was their way of "breaking the fourth wall", talking directly to us, saying it may have been best for Reeves to off himself, since otherwise he would only end up exactly like that? Or perhaps it was even supposed to be some (X-files-ish spooky-dooky, oo-wee-oo-wee-oo) example of alternate-reality/time-travel: That it actually *was* the old Reeves, from another possible world, where he survived to that age? Or it may just have been some actual random "creepy old guy" -- ehm, that is, eccentric senior citizen -- who happened to live there. Which brings us back to the first alternative: If not just we, the audience, but also Simo could see that elderly man, then that may have been part of what formed hiss final opinion: That Reeves himself probably wouldn't have wanted to end up like that, and therefore was likely to have killed himself. Just a few WAG's, HTH! :-)--CRConrad (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Influence

Snipped this: "Reeves is shown asking Toni to ask her husband to use his influence to get him a role in From Here to Eternity, and later his agent thanks her, which she returns with, "For what?", inadvertently revealing that she didn't help at all. He actually won the part on his own, but it is true that he tried to use her husband to get him more film roles, without much success."
In terms of historical accuracy (what "actually" happened), this is speculation, as we can hardly be sure that people's public statements on such matters are truthful.
Even within the film, it's possible that Toni did speak to her husband about this, but lets Reeves believe that his success was 100% his own in order to bolster his ego.
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate historical inaccuracy?

The bulletpoint about the reading of the will is too speculative. Besides the fact that an actual reading of the will is rare, do we know for sure it didn't happen? Just because Lemmon wasn't part of the will doesn't mean she couldn't have been there. Any person of interest (such as a fiance) could ask the court to review the will before it passed through probate. Surfbruddah (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of "Production" has the following lines:

       "Adrien Brody was cast as Louis Simo and Affleck eventually won the supporting role of Reeves.
       He saw Truth, Justice, and the American Way as an opportunity to . . ."

It is unclear as to which person "He saw" refers. Skaizun (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)