Talk:Green Lantern (film)

Latest comment: 1 month ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic GA Reassessment
Good articleGreen Lantern (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
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 15, 2024Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 24, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the film Green Lantern starring Ryan Reynolds has been in development since the 1990s and once included a comedic incarnation with Jack Black set to star?
Current status: Good article

Science Consulting

edit

The Science & Entertainment Exchange provided science consultants to the film's production team. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Under the Microscope: Green Lantern". Article. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Green Lantern (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) 00:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Theatrical and Extended Cut lengths

edit

Seems to be some inconsistent numbers for the lengths of the 2 cuts. The theatrical cut is 105m in the info box; 114m in the Home Media section (123m Ext. Cut minus the 9 minutes extra footage); while the extended cut is 123m (which happens to be 9 minutes, again, longer than the 114 implied for the theatrical, and 114m happens to be 9m longer than the 105m in the info box). It seems like the two cuts are either 105/114m or 114/123m. One of the cited sources seems to be confused somewhere. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is an old question but it is still valid. To answer it I will look at the various sources. Multiple conflicting sources makes this more complicated than it might seem.
I don't put much trust Box Office Mojo, (they round figures off, they estimate, they make mistakes) and that is on their claimed area of expertise, namely box office information. To use them as a source of runtimes is unwise. Box Office Mojo puts the at "Runtime: 1 hrs. 45 min." or 105 minutes.[1] While it is possible there is a some version of the film with this runtime, I would definitely prefer other sources.
Template:Infobox film recommends using the BBFC. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) lists multiple different runtimes which some people may find confusing, but the first runtime they list for Green Lantern is 114m 1s. (More runtimes are listed further down the page under the "Feature" section, and they round to either 114 or 119 minutes). Further runtimes are listed on other pages such as for the the home video release.
The Home Media section of this article includes a reference to superherohype.com [2] which includes the text "Running Time: 114 Minutes (Theatrical), 123 Minutes (Extended)", and further down it also says "only 9 minutes longer".
If I was going to change it I would put 114 minutes in the Infobox as the runtime and use BBFC as the reference. I'd probably rephrase the Home media section to say the Theatrical cut was 114 and the Extended cut was 123, since that's what the source says. -- 109.79.92.109 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think you should just change it. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Infobox changed to 114 with proper BBFC reference. Hopefully it will stay that way. -- 109.78.244.26 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in Green Lantern (film)

edit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Green Lantern (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DCUSlateVariety":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 10:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Closing as no consensus; no prejudice against another GAR being opened with a man-made rationale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I propose delisting the Green Lantern film article from "Good Article" status due to several issues. The article is not well-written, with unclear prose, and failure to follow the Manual of Style. It lacks broad coverage, missing important details while including unnecessary information. The reception and production sections are underdeveloped and need significant expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talkcontribs) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind outlining a rationale with specific issues to be fixed using your own words, not the vague ramblings of a WP:LLM Lililolol? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.