Talk:Manhunter (film)

Director's cut?

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)

Check out this page. It gives a great, in-depth look at the various cuts of the movie including the so-called "director's cut." Count Ringworm 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. That site is extremely precise. And proves I'm not losing it, as seeing the Director's cut, and going on memory from teh VHS tapes I'd rented, and my original viewing, I wondered if I'd only imagined some scenes. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Added Lecter scenes

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)

Eh, you are right in a way. However, Red Dragon adds a lot of Lecter, while I can only think of one Lecktor (yes, ugh) scene that Manhunter added off the top of my head. Maybe it is just worth mentioning how much Lecter is loaded into Red Dragon. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lecktor02.jpg

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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Box office performance

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manhunter michael mann film poster.jpg

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)

Synopsis Section

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)

Hardly. It is a tightly edited summary that gets my thumbs up as editor and someone who has seen the film several times. Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Silence of the Lambs

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)

Nonsense. The common character linking them all is Hannibal. Big-budget re-makes and pre/sequels don't divorce themselves from that just because you think they should. Go see the film. Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manhunter (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will review sometime today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• From here Graham pays Lecktor (Cox) a visit and asks Lecktor, a former psychiatrist, for his insight into the killer's motivations. I feel like you could combine both mentions of Lecktor in this sentence so help with flow. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite having initially filmed the scenes involved Francis Dollarhyde with an elaborate tattoo across actor Tom Noonan's chest. Do you mean involving? Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• The soundtrack section needs more citations. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Added. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• It was screened in November 1987 as part of the London Film Festival and saw wide release on February 24, 1989. Needs citation. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Still not addressed (the sentence I'm referring to is in the release section) :) Ruby2010 talk 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• In France the film was screened at the 1987 Cognac Festival du Film Policier on April 9, where it was awarded the Critics Prize. It was also shown at the 2009 Camerimage Film Festival in Łódź, Poland. Needs citation. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• The home media and legacy sections also need more references. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cited the home media section more thoroughly and removed uncited material from the legacy section . GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Manhunter's cinematographer Dante Spinotti also served as the director of photography on this version. Still needs a citation. Ruby2010 talk 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Television channel Bravo named Dollarhyde's interrogation of Freddie Lounds as one of its 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments in 2007. [22] This sentence confuses me. The citation is simply a link to the IMDB page about the 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments miniseries. Instead, the citation should be directly to the miniseries (much like you did with the DVD bonus features). Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Found and cited a transcription of the list. Have left the imdb citation to verify that the program aired and isn't a blog list. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• I realize it can be difficult to find casting information, but perhaps you could add more about why the director chose certain actors (like William Petersen for instance). Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Added for Petersen and Noonan. Cox was already mentioned. GRAPPLE X 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• There have been some recent reverts, mostly due to IP edits. Since they don't seem to be that serious, I'll ignore it. Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

2. 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):

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The article is mostly well-written, and I particularly like the reception section. However, the article needs citations (I indicated where above), along with a few other minor fixes. I'll place the review on hold for seven days while this gets sorted out. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for replying so quickly to my comments. I made a few more comments above noting some issues that still need to be fixed. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I really am an idiot. Cited Spinotti's role from Red Dragon's IMDB cast and crew page, and cited the film's UK wide release from IMDB too. Added a citation to the BFI website for the 1987 London Film Festival. GRAPPLE X 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself! They were simple mistakes. Nice work on the article. I'll pass it for GA. :) Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments before FAC

1. The lead is going to need expanding. Any FA film article worth its weight in gold generally has a lead section that properly summarizes the entire article. That's 3 to 4 (only 4 if you really need it) full paragraphs. That's paragraphs that are more than just 3 or 4 quick sentences.
2. Emdashes do not get spaces. Additionally, there is a difference between an ENDASH and an EMDASH, and you're using an ENdash in places where an EMdash is the correct punctuation.
3. The page seems plagued with very thin paragraphs. Most are barely 4 sentences long, and those do not create more than a couple lines on the page. You want paragraphs to be short and readable, but at the same time you want them large enough to express the ideas completely. I usually like to have between 6 to 10 sentences per paragraph...unless the sentence themselves are compound sentences, then I would shorten it accordingly. One to two sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided altogether.
4. The plot section could be tightened up. It's a bit wordy for a film about a serial killer. There isn't so much going on that any viewer would get lost if they did not pay attention to every second of the film, like say with Memento. i would work on cutting unnecessary details. Just to provide the barest of examples, the bit about the Tooth Fairy being a homosexual sadist is interesting to the film, but unnecessary when writing because in the grand scheme of the film it meant nothing.
5. This statement--"They also include a photograph of Graham staged with a deliberately identifiable location and Graham is given a bullet-proof vest to protect himself."--is very confusing. It's one of those unnecessary details to begin with (primarily the bit about Graham wearing a bullet proof vest as it is irrelevant to a reader that isn't watching).
6. Words like "awkwardly" (in the plot section) are personal observations and should not be there. What may seem awkward to you might seem natural to me. It's an opinion. Check for more of those.
7. You introduce "DEG" without explaining what it is. I figured out that it is De Laurentiis Entertainment Group, but you need to identify them fully before using an acronym.
8. "spelled "Lecktor" in the film due to copyright issues" - What copyright issues? I didn't see anywhere on this page that explains what these issues were and how they affected the film.
9. For FA, you're reception sections needs to be beefed up more. I don't think that the 33 reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and 10 reviews from Metacritic are a representative sample of critics. If you must use them, you need to first indicate the era of these reviews, as most (if not all) of the reviews from those sites come within the last 10 years. That is not a representation of reviews from when this film was originally released and they should not be given forefront to original critical opinion (which may have been different).
10. Release should come before critical reception, as chronologically that happens first.
11. Again, the revies of Silence of the Lambs are based on recent reviews and not original critical opinion. The prose should reflect that.

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)

Thanks for the pointers, they've been very helpful. I'm still working to find more contemporary reviews for the film, as your concerns about the Reception section is the only thing I've not seen to from that list. I do feel better about the article in light of this, so thanks. GRAPPLE X 04:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the critical reception section is too laudatory. I think you need a negative perspective in there too, especially considering the film wasn't held in such high regard initially. In fact I'd like to see the reception section organised into contemporary criticism and retrospective criticism so it's clear how the film was received. I notice IMDB is used a source, which we generally try to avoid especially in GA and FA because not everyone agrees they are reliable sources, so it could trip up an FA review. You should also clarify that the gross is domestic only, since we generally document worldwide grosses so it is slightly misleading as it stands. Overall it seems to cover all the bases. I think it could benefit from some more comparitive analysis with "Silence of the Lambs", because I know there is a big debate over whose depiction of Lecter is better, but it's probably not necessary for FA. Betty Logan (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Finding contemporary reviews has been the major bugbear of this article, as I've so far only been able to source Time and the New York Times. If I can find more, I'll split that section into two headings, but in the meantime I'll try to find more negative criticism from modern sources to balance it out. IMDB is only used as a source for things that either can't be sourced elsewhere or are pretty uncontroversial (eg the crew listings for Red Dragon); but I'll see if I can replace those as well. GRAPPLE X 13:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Managed to track down a few reviews from the time of the film's release; that's brought the contemporary review paragraph to the same size as the modern review one. If I can source a proper version of the Steve Winn review that Metacritic uses I'll include it in more detail, it seems to be the harshest review on record which would be useful to include. GRAPPLE X 19:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Source for later use

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'm currently reading that book. If anything comes of it, I'll let you know. Al Fecund (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox 'starring' field

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)

I support shortening the number of actors. I would be fine with having just Cox and Petersen in the field too, since they seem to be the leading roles. The others seem to be leading roles, at least from my brief reading of this article. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Of those four, Cox has the least screen time by far - his role is more well-known because of his character, as Hannibal got to be the series' star, but in terms of this film he's lower-billed. The posters just showed Petersen and Noonan (the article has one, but there's other ones out there as well with either those two or just Petersen). Farina I would list because he is more central than Cox, and it would seem strange omitting him for Cox. GRAPPLE X 22:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. It can be tricky to nail down who is really "starring". Reminds me of Island of Fire, which I watched as The Prisoner with Jackie Chan on the DVD cover. What a disappointment with his role being minor! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The cast should not be listed in alphabetical order. I don't remember seeing any other articles doing that when the film's credits didn't. And perhaps more important, Cox's role as Hannibal should not be mentioned before Peterson as the protagonist in the header. Despite saying "features Brian Cox" and "stars William Petersen," this gives the false impression Hannibal is seen much more in the film than he actually is, like in Silence of the Lambs. Their order should be flipped. I mention these because Grapple X asked for comment - both of these struck me as flaws immediately when I first saw the page. I held off making these changes myself out of respect for all the work Grapple seems to have done here. (Good job, by the way.) Gothicfilm (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the infobox kept the cast in alphabetical order to avoid any dispute over who is listed first, or who is ahead of anyone else. I've seen (and maintained) other infoboxes that do it the same way. I agree, now that you point it out, about the lead, though, and I'll get that changed. GRAPPLE X 18:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetising the cast list does no good for the reader, and obviously isn't stopping conflict here either in the last couple days. Best to use proper billing order like most other WP film pages.Gothicfilm (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the diffs, you'll see the conflict wasn't about the cast order - other information was being outright excised with no reason given, hence the reverts. Hiding that removal under the guise of changing cast listings seems to have just been a smokescreen for disruption. GRAPPLE X 00:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, and I agree with you keeping your cast in the header. That's why I didn't do a simple revert. If you look at his history, you'll see he usually just does proper billing order in infoboxes. He should have done the same here.Gothicfilm (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on cast

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)

Most top-billed actors should have a mention in the lead paragraph since complaining about lead paragraphs containing "redundant information" makes no sense in light of WP:MOSINTRO, which says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." How could it stand on its own if it doesn't contain redundant information? (For that matter, why doesn't the redundancy complaint apply to William S. Petersen?) Bluerules seems to be saying, on Grapple's talk page, that since other articles don't follow WP:LEAD (or don't follow it well enough) that no articles should. What's the point of having it, then? SilverCity 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, LEAD should be followed. The lead is a summary of the article and the infobox is almost like a micro summary/mini data dump. one thing Bluerules has done that I disagree with (from an ease of reader use standpoint) is to remove those major supporting actors from leads (not sure if it's been done on this film) but them bloat up the infobox starring list. This is completely the opposite of policy and guidelines on wiki at large and the film project, specifically. I think film articles are more user friendly if the lead does its job of summarizing and the infobox is as concise as possible. I've recently taken to browsing wiki on my phone and it's amazing how much more necessary some of the seemingly arbitrary guidelines become when you are looking at an article on a handheld. Millahnna (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with him in putting infobox credits in proper billing order, I'm sorry to see Bluerules turn out to be such a pain in insisting on thinning out your lead. Especially as you're only naming four actors. It works fine as it is. Gothicfilm (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you're drinking Grapple X's Kool-Aid. First he tries to stop me from expanding Heat's infobox, now he's preventing me from trimming this article, just because I'm removing pre-existing information. Rewatch Manhunter. Only Petersen truly has a starring role. Bluerules (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually a brown lemonade man, but rewatching a film is not the same as sticking to site policy. Just do what policy and consensus have both mandated, and leave well alone. GRAPPLE X 02:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit, December 2011

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)

Dino De Laurentiis in infobox

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)

I could dig out the DVD to check, but IMDB definitely lists Dino as having a "producer" (not executive) credit. If he's not on the credits in the film itself, though, then he could be removed outright. He did have some degree of involvement with the film, for sure, but from what I've been able to find it consisted entirely of naming it. GRAPPLE X 02:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Just checked, you're right. Roth has the only "producer" credit and Williams has the only "executive producer" credit. Dino's name isn't actually in the credits at all, outside of the DEG name. That'll learn me to use IMDB as a shortcut. I'll gank it now. GRAPPLE X 02:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I submitted a change to the IMDb - hopefully we'll soon see DDL listed as an uncredited Executive Producer on this film, as that's most accurate. It almost impossible to get them to delete a credit, but I've gotten them to tag dozens with "(uncredited)".

It's likely DDL had more of a role than ever hit the 1986 media. We don't usually hear much about a producer's involvement, especially before the internet. I've never seen much mention of Roth or the line producer Williams either. We only heard about Dino changing the title because there had to be an explanation for "What happened to the title of the book?" - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Brought Brian Cox into greater prominence? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Table

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 agree with you. I am opposed to the use of such tables in almost every instance. There are films where tables are necessary, but they generally add nothing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

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)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Miscellameness#Manhunter (film). Bencherlite^Talk 00:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for helping. Very productive. You're a credit to Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• You were both warned but decided not to use the talk page or (as far as I can tell) use other forms of dispute resolution, and instead took a brief pause before carrying on your petty snarking at each other in edit summaries. Thanks for that. Very productive. You're both a credit to Wikipedia. Bencherlite^Talk 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• You could take care of the edit summaries. Glad to know we're all credits to Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently Grapple has no intention of a civil discussion about the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  I started civilly. You ignored that. Then I got brusque. You ignored that too. You've yet to provide a single reason for a change which is in no way productive or helpful, so don't try painting me as the uncooperative one. GRAPPLE X 07:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• There was no civil start. Regardless, since this last article protection, your sole communication with me has been far from civil. The reason is simple: It is already linked twice before. Once in the info box and one in the article. What you have failed to do is say why we need it a third time. You keep repeating that you are allowed under a guideline that doesn't explicitly say that, but what we are allowed to do isn't always what we should do. This isn't even a situation where the link in the article and the one in the link are really far apart. They are in adjacent sections. The idea behind a link is to help the person understand better. Problem is, that link doesn't help that. The source is a DVD that they probably won't see. But if they do see it, the screen tells us who is he and what he did on the film. If they've read the article to that point, they've already encountered his name SEVEN times. If they had no clue who he was, isn't it more likely that they'd either click on the link earlier or simply type in his name the other 6 times they saw it. In the end, your sole justification appears to be "because I can" and that's based on your interpretation of the guidelines. Additionally, you incorrectly stated the guidelines from the start regarding other links as well. I know you worked on this article, but you are not the only editor, not the only one who can interpret a guideline and certainly not the owner. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I see you're as liberal with the truth as with our guidelines; I initially explained the usefulness of the link, the standard procedures as to what gets linked, and provided several guideline pages as well to answer any further questions; when you showed that you had no intention of listening to any of it, I dropped any efforts to reach out to you as I knew they would be in vain. The simple fact is this—in no way does a valid link in a citation breach a single guideline or policy. It offers navigational aid to a reader and avoids making them take an additional step to find what they want. To remove it only makes things more difficult for anyone who wants to find the information, and when your only rationale for taking it out is that you alone don't like it, you are being disruptive and are putting your opinion before either the purpose of wikipedia or the consensus of its users. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• You still have this mindset that if there isn't a specific, on point prohibition of something that is must not only be allowed, but preferred. Your "effort to reach out to me" is still on my talk page. No rational person would see that as civil. You keep saying "one in the lead, one in the article and one in citations", yet I see no place that says that. You even made the false claim that OVERLINK required a that something linked in the lead must be linked again in the article. When that was demonstrated to be false, you switched to "allows". And don't give me you "you alone" silliness.....I haven't seen anyone else swoop in here to support you. Any link could be argued to "save steps", yet we have OVERLINK to prevent having everything linked. That'se evidence that the consensus is not what you say. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• If something isn't prohibited, then why would it ever be reasonable or rationale to oppose it without providing any actual reason for doing so (something you still refuse to actually provide)? And I will continue to give you the "you alone" talk—with two peer reviews, a good article review, a GOCE copy-edit and three featured article reviews all focussing on this article, all of those eyes combing it, you are the sole person who thinks one link in one citation is so worthy of ire that you continue to wage war against it. Surely you can see how useless and narrow a crusade it is. At the end of the day, so long as you continue to insist that because you don't like it, and nothing expressly mandates or forbids it, it must go, you'll be reverted; you are not helping a damn soul in this whatsoever. You are deliberately making an article more difficult to navigate for readers simply because your own ego allows you to believe that your idiosyncratic and unhelpful preferences are more important than actually helping anyone reading the article. GRAPPLE X 19:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You act like something has to be spelled out with 100% specificity. Fine. Show me a policy that says OVERLINK doesn't apply here. Show a policy, guideline or MOS that says something that is already linked twice in an article must be linked in the sources. There isn't one. I doubt you could find one that even says it should be linked. Just because something went through a review doesn't mean an item was really even considered. Again, just because something doesn't violate a policy doesn't mean we should do it. While you chant "it's not prohibited" over and over, I'll say, you can't show where it's specifically permitted either. I keep hearing you talk about how it's helpful to some imaginary reader (who apparently missed the first two opportunities) and to be honest, the more you say it, the less I believe it. This is an ownership issue for you. His name SHOULD be linked in the article. I should not be linked three times. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some kind of problem that prevents you from actually giving a rationale for this? You are hammering away at a petty issue which was 100% uncontroversial and 100% perfectly fine until one person (you) took an unjustified grievance against it. I'm not saying that anything that isn't prohibited has to be done. In fact, if that's what you honestly believe I'm saying, I'd rather speak to the person who looks after you. What I'm saying is that content which no one before yourself, in a heavily-reviewed article, has ever taken issue with, and which sole person who doesn't like it can't muster one reason why they don't want it other than "well, it's not mandatory that it stays", has absolutely no reason to go. Do yourself a favour, and open up WP:FA. Then flick to any article there. You will find a pattern—terms are linked in the lead (an autonomous summary which should be able to stand alone from the article body and as such should be navigable on its own), again in the body (which is where they rightly "belong" as that's the core of the article) and again in tables/captions/citations/notes etcetera, because there is no earthly reason to obfuscate the article for anyone reading it. No, that isn't spelt out anywhere as a mandatory thing. And no, it isn't prohibited anywhere either. It's just common practice across the wiki's best articles, and there's usually a good reason why trends occur in highly-rated pieces—because they're useful and desired. So to come along here, find one citation link (not even all of them, or all of them of a sort, just one) and say "this does not belong, despite the catalogue of identical practices across the board at WP:FA, because I say so and I won't back it up with reasoning" is just mindless disruption. If you're not going to explain your belief, if you're going to sit and put words and motives in my mouth when I refute both your aim and your method, then you are doing absolutely nothing but disrupting the project. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for proving (again) you are incapable of being civil. No matter how many times you link to IDONTLIKE it, or how many ways you think to pipe link it, you ignore two things 1) That is NOT the basis of my argument and 2) That essay is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and really has nothing to do with the way you're using it. It does, however, highlight your tendency to see only what you want and make up the rest, just like you did when you told me the lie fabrication falsehood that anything linked in the lead is required to be linked in the body of the article.[1]. Still, you clearly have decided to throw civility out the window. (And I won't link to those policies on civility or personal attacks because I'm sure you've been shown them before based on your repeated incivility). So stop pretending like you are actually trying to have a civil discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• As I've already explained to you, I'm not going to sit here and mind my Ps and Qs with someone who has no intention of being reasonable. I've made no pretence that I'm trying to be nice to you. I'm not. I'm being brusque because you simply have no purpose but disruption here. Instead of responding to repeated challenges to actually justify your disruption you continue to throw words in my mouth so that you go distract yourself refuting them. Why do I insist that terms linked in the lead should be linked in the article too? Because an article without wikilinks is a pain in the ass to navigate—but you don't care about readers, you care only about the letter of the law and not the spirit. When I spelt out in simple terms that the lead of an article is meant to be summary of what already exists, not a continuation of it, you simply took to saying "NO U SAID LINKS MUST BE REPEATED DURR"; when I'm clearly, even in the diff you're using yourself, pointing out the purpose of the guidelines, not citing some explicit corollary. I'd thank you to actually pay attention to what you're pissing and moaning about. Why am I linking WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Because the very fact that an essay exists explaining that personal opinion does not trump consensus or utility should show you, regardless of context, that you're going to have to actually explain yourself. If you fail to do so on your next response I'm not going to continue this discussion whatsoever, as it's already abundantly clear that you have no goal in mind but disrupting this article and detracting from its use for everyone but yourself. GRAPPLE X 11:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Continue what discussion? You made no attempt to discuss anything on that reply. All you did was insult me, try to justify your own rudeness and tried to explain why you continue to link to an essay that actually has nothing to do with this discussion. You can try to justify your dickish behavior all you like, but that won't make it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Since the lie was told that there has been no rationale, I'll repeat myself: If they've read the article to that point, they've already encountered his name SEVEN times. If they had no clue who he was, isn't it more likely that they'd either click on the link earlier or simply type in his name the other 6 times they saw it. There is no exception to the MOS that says 'once in the lead, once in the body, once in the sources' as claimed. OVERLINK says it doesn't need repeated. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the last time, there is NO breach of MOS in linking the term where it is linked, and NO guideline whatsoever to say that it shouldn't be linked where it is. You are placing your own personal opinion over and above the functionality of the article, the general consensus of pretty much any FA you can open up, and the local consensus of this article. Simply claiming "it isn't mandated" is not a rationale. It's a flimsy excuse for painting your opinion as fact. Find some actual ground to stand on, or find a different article to disrupt. GRAPPLE X 00:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• The MOS does say it needn't be linked all those times. You keep talking about consensus, yet have shown no evidence of it. The idea of 'nobody else removed it' isn't consensus. Declaring an edit "vandalism" won't exempt you from the 3RR and it's contradictory to the policy :"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism" Even if I was wrong based on my interpretations (and I'm not saying I am), your reverting my edit as vandalism is a clear disregard of that policy and more evidence of your incivility and ownership tendencies.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Edit warring started again, both editors blocked. Page protection does not seem to help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Lecktor

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 uses the spelling Lecktor. Same pronunciation. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The spelling of Dollarhyde in the film also differs from the book's one-L Dolarhyde. Never could find a reason for either change. GRAPPLE ^X 23:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hannibal the cannibal?

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)