Talk:Kick-Ass (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Release date

Website or page for the December 17, 2010 Release date!--68.149.209.143 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

some quotes from the director http://movies.ign.com/articles/947/947275p10.html -- Horkana (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country

Shot mostly in the UK, from a British director, British writers, and based on a comic by a British writer. Why is the country listed as United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.129.90 (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American production company?68.105.171.25 (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school in the film (at least the movie trailer) is Sir Winston Churchill Secondary in Canada. - 24.36.115.4 (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB lists the film as USA/UK otherwise I was going to remove the USA from the country listing. Some of it was filmed in New York, Canada, but the UK was the primary location. -- Horkana (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Canada be added in the list of countries then? It only says filmed in the US and UK. As I have said earlier, the high school in the movie trailer is Sir Winston Churchill Secondary which is located in Canada. - 24.36.115.4 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The giant backhanded spoiler in this made me really glad I read kick-ass before visiting this wiki (I'm referring to the notes that the actor playing the wife of the mobster is also red mist's mother) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.77.2 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately avoided this article until I'd seen the film, this article is going to be full of spoilers even if a few good editors do try to be tactful there will be twice as many griefers acting like they need to spoil everything right in the intro. For what it is worth in the film (hell even from the posters) it is way more obvious who Red Mist is and there is much less of a surprise than in even in the comics. -- Horkana (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, the film is awesome, much more than I expected. *Ehem* I mean, yeah, British/American film no doubt. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have marked it UK as that is the main country of the production company MARV and that seems to fit what Template:Infobox_Film says. IMDB lists USA/UK so I'm willing to go along with that since it is what we have now, even if IMDB is a weak source. If you want to add Canada I'm not going to argue with you about it either, I'm ambivalent really. (I do think the recommendation against link to British Cinema is pedantic crap and taking WP:EGG too far so I wouldn't bother linking it at all.) -- Horkana (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the street scenes where clearly shot in Toronto, Canada. The scene with Kick Ass riding in the car with Red Mist was shot along Yonge Street. Though the film makers took care to leave out obvious identifiable landmarks like the CN Tower, other key buildings, like the TD Canada Trust Tower, can be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadoma (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of American propaganda. Especially IMDB. In IMDB for example Harry Potter is an "American\British" movie. There are a lot of non-American movies that have an "American" there just for propaganda. This movie doesn't have a damn thing that's American in it. Not so much to call it "American" anyway. I won't even bother to make a point because the administrators will do whatever they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.17 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Pitt is American, his production company is one of the two. Generally when talking about a movie, it is the production company which is important. -- Beardo (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by 70.29.59.12

The above editor is continually inserting highly POV material which is "sourced" to their personal website. This will be reported at WP:AN/EW. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:70.29.59.12 blocked for 24 hours, User:Rightous blocked indefintely by User:Kuru. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity to South Park episode

The whole idea behind this film (kid decides to become local superhero, another kid does it as well) is exactly the same as the South Park episode "The Coon", which aired March 2009. So which came first? South Park or Kick Ass? Who was ripping off who? In the March 2010 edition of Empire magazine, Matthew Vaughn says this was an idea about which the developers said 'Hey, this is a great idea, why hasn't anyone done this before?" But had someone? Did South Park get there first? 82.32.238.139 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well this film is an adaptation of a comic which began publication February 2008, so I suppose no, South Park didn't get there first. 174.23.124.201 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, the south park episode was inspired by Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Watchmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coon#Cultural_references) Schadenfreude328 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the Comic book

The film has some differences from the comic book, and the film subjectively seemed less violent, and the plot structuring was a little different but the a few of the differences I noticed were (in the comic):

  • The gang boss is named John Genovese (in the film he is called Frank D'Amico)
  • Dave Lizewski does not get the girl
  • Damon Macready/Big Daddy turns out not to have been a police officer, and the gang boss is not connected to him, he just needed a villain to be a hero

There are more minor differences and the final action sequence is more elaborate in the film but only the different backstory for Macready is probably the most significant, even so it is probably not worth having a separate section. This might be something that could be mentioned in passing in the (screen) writing/production sections if there are articles or reviews where they mention differences. If I find any sources that seem like they might be appropriate I'll add them here later. -- Horkana (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed these as well. I think that a separate section should be added, as these things would be worthy of note, but are not significant enough to be mentioned in the plot (with the possible exception of Lizewski getting the girl in the film and her also discovering he is Kick-Ass). By the way, i finished off the plot section, and will double-check the section already there for errors. 81.106.103.107 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of getting the girl, I've tried to work in a bit about the writing based on the video interview and Mark Millar's comment that they made a "chick flick" but ideally I'd want an interview with Jane Goodman to sort that out. This might be the only difference I can safely work into the article, trigger happy deletionists are liable to delete a separate section purely listing differences which is why I didn't add it earlier.
The film establishes pretty definitively that Big Daddy was a real hero super cop, AND a comic fanboy. Hit Girl says she has a bag with 3 million in it, so it seems pretty clear they are funded by the money they took from the criminals. I like how the flash back sequence was presented in a comic book style, maybe that will be worth writing about.
There might be more significance to the gangster name change, there might not.
Thanks for the plot additions, I tried to do some more cleanup and might do a little more to try and keep it terse and keep as many plot points in there as possible. -- Horkana (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I came to this page to read about the differences (as I always do) and was disappointed to find that there wasn't a solid list available. You guys should definitely go for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.79.212 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just simply stating, I also think it's a good idea as well. I have the actual comics as well if referencing or citing will be a problem. Just a thought. (Ollipmouf (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately, we cannot just list differences indiscriminately. It's better to put differences in more useful context. See MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. It's not impossible to find publications that compare source material and film; these will outline the most discriminate differences so we can avoid making inane comparisons like, "He wears gloves in the comics, but he does not wear gloves in the film." Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The differences that I would like to list would be relate more so to plot details than costumes or most of anything else. The only thing I'd mention about costumes is the fact that the comic doesn't make Big Daddy look like Batman. But that'd be it in terms of costumes. I'm (I can't speak for everybody who wants this list) not looking to nitpick at the movie against the comic. If that was the case, the list would be endless. Just looking to note a few things here and there that stood out between the film and comic, that's it. (Ollipmouf (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Here is something that you could use. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Schedeen (2010-04-07). "Kick-Ass Split Screen. IGN flips through the pages of Kick-Ass to see how it measures up to its live-action counterpart". IGN. News Corporation. Retrieved 2010-04-22. we examine how the costumes of each hero have evolved in the transition from printed page to celluloid.
The article focuses on the differences of the costume design. This design information could probably be presented as a subsection of Production. I've formatted the link as a citation if anyone wants to get started on it. -- Horkana (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor attempted to add a long list of differences which while mildly interesting is not especially encyclopedic and most of the points weren't especially interesting e.g. "brown hair not blond" -- Horkana (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments about the "toning-down" of the violento scenes of the movie in the Rating section. I think it'll help to reduce the controversy since movie director really worried of toning down the extreme violence of the original comic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magegg (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

Matthew Vaughn says the budget was $28 million dollars US at roughly fourteen minutes into an interview with Jonathan Ross. I'm taking the director himself as the most reliable source, especially since he specifically contradicts the assertion that the film cost $70 million.

The comic book article for Kick-Ass gives the figure as "about $30 million" from the Hollywood Reporter which only serves as a rounded up number against the more specific number of $28 million from the director. That article then claims "Millar updated the figure to $65 million" (not where the timestamp said it would be and apparently not in this source given but anyhow) which even if he did is total bunk since the source is dated August 29, 2008, and is easily trumped by the director himself speaking in March 2010.

Budget is $28 million. Q.E.D. -- Horkana (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy?

Is this a comedy film? That is what it looked like from trailers, I initially thought this was some kind of parody. -- unsigned comment by 68.8.8.19

It is a superhero action movie first and although there are funny bits it is not a comedy. IMDB calls it an Action Comedy Drama in that order, for more description see the plot keywords section -- Horkana (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Post says "superhero comedy kicks major butt" (subtitle)
The film has comedy aspects, and it is definitely not a serious drama. I see the primary genre as superhero or action or adventure, the comedy is secondary. I would be concerned about giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to the comedy aspects but if someone wants to change the introduction text it should be discussed first. -- Horkana (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (1989 film)

Why does the plot link to the 1989 original Batman flick towards the end? I removed it temporarily until we're clear on this. --TitanOne (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Batman_(1989_film)
* "Winged freak terrorizes"? Wait 'til they get a load of me! - Joker
The film makes quite a few references to Batman, Wolverine and other superheroes. (The Kick-Ass comic book amusingly references Spider-man was adapted to film inconsistent with the comic book.) Not sure how best to add these details in a way that other editors will not rush to delete. -- Horkana (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

User:P.Marlow marked the article as having POV issues after critics from the Telegraph and The Mail were added saying "Clearly negatively biased. Quotes several negative reviews directly, and no positive ones". If anything the inclusion of these negative critics serves to balance out the article but it makes more sense if you know the inherent bias in the sources and if the article explained things in better context. Also this criticism has a high level of notability because it is something those newspapers have decided to make a fuss about beyond their film reviews. The controversy section might be better merged with this negative criticism and the "wont someone think of the children" hyperbole the Telegraph better explained. The fact that they were criticizing the film before it was even released just goes to show, and Matthew Vaughn had no problem admitting the film was never aimed at their audience (in the Jonathan Ross interview). -- Horkana (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of those critics ever met a kid before? Every single filthy swear word in existence is spoken by every citizen of the United motherfucking States of America because that's what makes us kickawesome.
Those newspapers appeal to a particular audience and their bias is well known, just as the left leaning bias of the Guardian is well known. As an overall view of British public opinion they are useful, even if from our point of view they seem quite over the top. The reaction from critic Roger Ebert is far better judged and measured and instead of getting hung upon the language instead finds the reality of the violence too much and is reasonably enough offended by it. (Personally I found the violence a little bit too much like Tom & Jerry but it probably would have been very disturbing if they violence had been treated very realistically.) -- Horkana (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much negative reviews in reception section

Who is editing this stuff? Where all the positive reviews? Is there like 2 good ones that are barely mentioned and like 6 bad ones there? Where's all the "mostly positive" reviews? --81.155.99.190 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Positive reviews by the NY Times, the LA Times, the Kansas City Star, the Toronto Star and Film Journal International -- that's not a bad bunch. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rotten Tomatoes rating suggests most of the criticism was positive but even so I find negative criticism can me often be more informative and interesting. If you want to remove a negative critic remove the newest one just added. Think it was from some guys called 'Movie Action' and the citation was malformed and the editor didn't say whey these critics were particularly notable.
More importantly the negative/conservative response to the previews really should be folded into the Reception section. Ideally a really good editor would summarize the consensus from the critics and mention some of the key recurring points the make about the film (rather than the current writing which take each critic one by one, instead of a more comprehensive overview as some of the better film Featured Articles might do.) -- Horkana (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the negative critics. Whoever referenced them didn't include much of interest from the review, just that they didn't like it. I checked the link to read the review but it turned out to be a video. The video turned out not to be relevant, it was a generic link for the show and if the page contained a review of Kick-Ass before it does not now. I also wonder how notable these critics are. If someone wants to add it back then I'd be interested to know why these critics are notable, but more importantly a relevant link is needed at minimum, and it would be better if something more relevant and informative was included from the review than "skip it". Notice how the criticism from Ebert really expresses a strong opinion. -- Horkana (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among U.S. critics, Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott of "At the Movies" both gave Kick-Ass a "Skip-it" rating. [1]
Agree with Horkana. We're meant to provide in=depth encyclopedic information, with whys and wherefores, and not be a current moviegoer's guide. I don't think listing numbered star ratings helps things in term of historical relevance. ("Citizen Kane -- 4 stars out of 5" -- really, what does that say that a quote from the reviewer wouldn't say better and more in-depth?) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: if we include a critic and they've given a specific/arbitrary rating I do try to include it in the citation. That is okay as an absolute minimum but when so many other better critics are available an insightful quote is what we will need here at least for starters. The adequate film articles offer the aggregate websites and the a few positive and a few negative critics. The really good film articles take the critics not one by one but instead use them together to cleverly critique all aspects of the film.
This article has an odd geographical spread of critics rather than a good spread of opinions and different insights into the film. It's a start but it could be so much better. -- Horkana (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've had to point out too many times about recent movies, unfortunately the art/craft of current reviewers/critics has completely denigrated, reflecting the awful tatses of recent generations. It's hard now, and will become impossible to fairly judge a film's quality given today's increasing poor taste, standards and experiences. POV? Yes, but accurate nonetheless. To give a film such as this (in an encyclopedic article) the impression that this was a good movie, based on an average of Rotten Tomatoes, or other such site, which includes loads of poor reviewers is misleading to say the least. I can't suggest an alternative, sadly, unlike we soon have a total reversal of trends in our culture. Highbrow culture barely exists at this pooint, middlebrow culture which once ruled the nest has utterly caved in to lowbrow culture, and this has hardly ever been worse, so what's to do? Ditto the general problem about the normal use of what's a "hit" movie these days. One simply has to refer to any list of top all time films by box office, then look at the list when inflation is calculated, and the movies nearly all change positions. One easily sees that the hits of yesteryear truly remain big hits, whereas most of the blockbusters since the late 80s early 90s mostly disappear (with an exception or two, proving the rule). Today's DVD rentals and streaming also can't make up for the simply enormous numbers of viewers which prime time network and even local airings (plus later the early years of modern cable) used to provide to old films after theatrical runs. Whether a movie makes back it's money and provides it's producers and studio a handsome profit doesn't truly reflect whther a movie is a "hit"in the old fashioned sense, wherein a "hit" meant most people you know, regardless of age or station in life saw the darned thing! I couldn't name one person I know (thank goodness) who saw crap like "Kick Ass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.228.93 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rather uninformative "Skip-It" rating was added back to the article as part of a rephrasing of the Critics section. Supposedly (according to Rotten Tomatoes at least) A.O. Scott is a a "top critic" so you'd imagine there must be something more insightful in his review, a actual comment about the film. The rephrasing of the section did have some good points (and bad points like the wholesale removal of UK critics) but I'm still not sure including the "Skip-It" rating is good enough. -- Horkana (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "At the Movies".

Myspace

Editor deleted link to Kick-Ass on Myspace marking it as a WP:FANSITE. I reverted saying the myspace page was official. -- Horkana (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It's common practice for the marketing team to set up myspace/facebook accounts for their films. But it's not generally accepted on Wiki. You can look at other articles of recent released films. None of them have included myspace links. So... Cheers. --Artoasis (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artoasis: It can be accepted as long as they do not clutter up the links. Wikipedia External links are not a directory, but we use discretion in whether or not to include official Myspace/Facebook links. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved your comment here where it is relevant. Turns out the link had been changed and should have been Kick-Ass on Myspace which is official, although it is for the comic and there may have been another different page, the page you deleted is a Fansite and not one the one I remembered.
There is another problem, the intro should summarize the article. The myspace, ebay, and youtube, name-dropping might needs to be mentioned in the article itself and then summarized in the intro which will give a more appropriate place to put any myspace links. -- Horkana (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box office.

Keep it chronological. The US release was not first so don't overemphasize the opening weekend by putting it first and leave the international takings in front. -- Horkana (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for saying you deleted it, but the changed to a non-chronological order doesn't help clarity. -- Horkana (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my habit of noting the US opening figures first when I did c.e. for the box office section. No problem if you want it to keep it chronological. I'll have to restore the detailed info though. The current version has some wording and spacing issues. --Artoasis (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

Deleted from article:

The film features a lot of information technology such as MySpace and YouTube, and reflects the popular culture, fashion and social climate of the early 2010s strongly, making it something of a period piece.

Text is a bit speculative but both the comic and the film intentionally reference popular aforementioned websites. It is an integral part of the style of the film, something that will date it quite quickly. In interviews the film makers do go on about making a modern superhero film instead of remaking old heroes. Since the intro is supposed to summarize the article it didn't really belong there but there should be room for it somewhere. There's the start of something her and although it would need a bit of clean-up and a few sources to create a decent section out of it we shouldn't be in any hurry to delete it, but cleaning it up is a tricky task so I encourage others who are willing to tackle it. -- Horkana (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eBay?

I just saw the movie today, and most definitely buy the wet suit off of eBay. It looked more like a dive shop.Halofanatic333 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the plot section goes, it doesn't matter where he bought it, only that he did. This detail has been trimmed to only say he bought it. (Deftonesderrick 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I was thinking if the article had a Themes section I wouldn't feel compelled to mention it at all. Then I thought about it a bit further and decided not to mention buying a costume at all and only mention that he asked the paramedics not to mention his costume.
I'm trying to trim as much as possible so someone else doesn't come along and cut the summary right down to 400 words. I'd be happier with a more detailed 1000 word plot summary to be honest. I reluctantly removed the subplot about Marcus, I really liked the insight about how Mindy should have a normal life. Similarly previous edits have cut out how D'Amico killed a party entertainer dressed as Kick-Ass. I feel these cuts leave room enough to keep the whole Lynsey subplot, which I think is important since it is an aspect of the story so different from the book. -- Horkana (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit-Girl?

Doesn't Hit-Girl deserve her own article by now? For An Angel (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not but you could go for it, and try starting one anyway!. Last I checked Hit-Girl is a redirect to Kick-Ass (comics). If you start (and keep) a page in your own userspace first and get it to a decent size it might stand a better chance of surviving when you do copy/move it over. Although she does steal the film the comic has only run for one collected volume and Hit-Girl is not the title character and has not quite as many appearances as a character like say Harley Quinn. It's worth a try, you never know. If you gather the material from the comics as well as the film, make note of any merchandise, collect as many reviews and articles as you can, especially ones that mention the controversy about Hit-Girl or any feminist or other broader cultural impact her character might have then maybe, just maybe you'd have enough well sourced material to keep an article just for Hit-Girl.
Incidentally the page Hit Girl is kind of weird, check it out. -- Horkana (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure how I would organize it. I was just wondering if she was notable enough to warrant her own article. I realize that she may be a minor character in the comics but I think, especially now that the movie is out, she is the one character that has been mentioned the most in reviews in articles. What should be taken into account more when determining notability, the number of appearances in different forms of media or the number of articles and such written about her? I don't want to create it only to have it deleted right away just because I couldn't make it good enough. For An Angel (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better so start and develop a "characters" section in the Kick-Ass (comics) article with the characters' background, history, etc (listing how they are portrayed in comic and film), and see if it develops enough to justify a Characters in Kick-Ass article, which may in turn evolve into several separate articles about the individual characters if there is enough material. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Hit-Girl deserves her own page, then we need to make pages for Big Daddy, Red Mist, Katie, Dave's Dad, Razul, etc. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Hit-Girl received way more coverage from independent sources than Dave's Dad etc. For An Angel (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences section

I haven't read the comic yet but have gathered enough information to see that there are some fairly major differences between comic and film, especially regarding the Big Daddy and Red Mist characters. The most notable difference apparently concerns the background of Big Daddy, while Red Mist is more straightforwardly evil in the comic. It seems that the differences may stem from the fact that the comic's final issue(s) hadn't been released yet while the movie was still into production. Wouldn't it be useful to create a "differences between comic and film" section ? (I can't do it myself right now for I'd have to read the comic before, but users familiar with both versions might be interested to do it). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also above section on this same question. Some editors don't like these sections and since they are pretty much self evident (sourced from the book summary and the film plot summary) some editors denounce it as original research and just delete it. It sucks to make an effort and see other editors delete instead of helping to improve your work so I just drafted the few main points but I'd encourage others to add such a section if they are willing to watch and deal with the editors who will probably try to delete it.
I might still try to include some of the differences is small ways, under other sections like Production and writing sections, or costume differences, or how Mark Millar noted they'd made a "chick flick" etc. -- Horkana (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with these kind of sections is that they become trivia lists and often nitpick small details that aren't important. I'd be in support of a section, or maybe a subsection of production, why changes were, not just that there are differences and here they are. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I hadn't seen the section. Actually, it does seem that issue 8 of the Kick-ass comic (where the revelations about Big Daddy occur) had not yet been released while the movie was still in production. The film's authors were obviously in contact with Millar and presumably aware of his intentions (?) but it would be interesting to have some details about the comic and film's parallel productions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added a few comments, by the comics' authors, about the Big Daddy character. I think they're informative enough. I've also expanded the "characters" section in the article about the comic-book, including some comparizons (not too long, hopefully) with the characters' movie versions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your additions to the article for Kick-Ass (comics). I thought it would be nice to use the Characters section to get a bit more detail in there but had not finished. It does seem a little bit long to me but the amount of detail for each character is quite well balanced, and the does work out fairly well as a way to shoe-horn in the differences between the comic and the film (although I wish killjoy editors didn't require such sneakiness, when a really good editor might help us craft a better Writing/Development section). Unless I see an especially elegant way to move that information around I'm unlikely to change it.
I did buy the "making of" book of the film/comic since it was on sale and have been meaning to add more details for a while, and reinforce existing parts of the article with it as a stronger citation. Strangely there is even a bit in there from Jane Goldman where she said Chloe Moretz requested Hit Girl have a purple motorcycle in the sequel. -- Horkana (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Having read the comic now, it seemed a pity not to include that info somewhere. Any more informations about the development of the comic and film (viral campaign et. al.) will of course be welcome. Some additional info about the differences between comic and film might go into the "development" section here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did this real happen (When he saves a man from beating)

Theres a video from Dezember 2007 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PG9lgOFifY

But the comic was released 2008. So I wanted to ask if there is a link to reality, because a video really exists were some guy with a mask saves another(see the link). --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not real. The first link on the top right of that very page links to the same video only with the title "Kick Ass Viral Campaign". See also Kick-Ass comic promotion -- Horkana (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Soundtrack song

The soundtrack section states that songs in the film but not on the soundtrack include: "...the "Adagio in D-minor" and "Escaping the Icarus 2" tracks from the Sunshine soundtrack". Checking on the page for that album, tracks 4 and 15 are both listed as "Adagio in D-Minor", and there's no song called "Escaping the Icarus 2" at all. Can someone check/correct this? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please split negative and positive reviews in the Critical response section

Unfortunately, I don't have time to work on this myself, but it would really help if someone would give the Critical response section two parts: one about the negative reviews, one about the neutral or positive reviews; clearly separated. I just read parts of the article and after the first small paragraph in that section it just seemed a flood of information about negative reviews. If the two are clearly split up, we can see if that section is balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.70.54 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a massive overhaul of the article putting the layout of the Critical response section. What I've basically done is to put it back much more like how it was arranged in summer 2010, as the article originally developed.
Explanation
Review aggregation websites are listed first, as is the usual way.
Critics from the UK, are listed next. The film was released first in the UK.
International critics, postive and negative are listed next.
I've added comments to the source to help make these sections clearer. It may be a good idea to label these sections with subsections and not just comments or anchros. There may be reason to put the UK critics after the international critics but what happened before was that editors failed to notice the opening words of the paragraph "In the United Kingdom" and just shoved a bunch of international critics in all over the place and making an incoherent mess.
I resisted making changes before in part because I hoped an editor might use the list of miscellaneous critics and begin to write more insightful prose that analized different aspects of the direction, writing, cinematography, visual effects, etc. as some of the better Featured Articles manage to do. That never happened so I've finally reorganised the Critics as they were before: aggregators, UK, US & international.
Further cleanup: I vaguely recall there was someone who misunderstood "accessdates" and many of the citation fields were left lacking a date field. I've added dates, some are not available others are may still be missing. I'm not sure if they were ever added or if they got removed at some stage but most of the critic citations did not include a work or a publisher and I've added a few, more should be added.
None of the critics have been backed up by WebCite. It would be great if some of the sources were saved, and if anyone has a script to automate the process that would be even better. -- Horkana (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financing

The article is still a bit thin when it comes to Production details describing how it was financed and the budget raised independently by Vaughan. I'm not ready to write about it yet, but I found a source that may be helpful in expanding other parts of this article.
The LA Times write about the money paid for US distribution and of an additional spend of 28-30 million on Prints and Advertising costs. This could perhaps be mentioned under box office, to contrast the costs against what was earned but it is probably more appropriate under Release section as it is about the distribution rights and costs of Release. -- Horkana (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough said about the negative aspects of this film

The film is cynical and damaging ultimately to cinema. Why it is promoted even in this article as a 'tour de force' is puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.241.169 (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of the film is a moot point. However, if you can find reliable sources discussing these aspects of the film, we can add them. I do not see anywhere in the article that the film is "promoted...as a 'tour deforce'". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the [citation needed] on that "tour de force" thing. The #Critical response section is balanced with counterexamples e.g. Tookey/The Daily Mail - "This crime against cinema...". Dl2000 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we had someone saying there were too many negative reviews (see above or archives) and now we have not enough! I would say it is an issue of quality rather than quantity. A negative review can be often be insightful and provide contrast. There are negative reviews referenced, unfortunately the choice of negative reviews are not well quoted, the worst example is the "Skip it" rating which is so uninformative I'm very tempted to remove it (again). -- Horkana (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a main portion of the reviews being mixed to POSITIVE, it will be hard to add a whole bunch of negatives. And Kick-Ass a "crime to cinema"? What about "Jonah Hex"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de Janiero God (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French ratings

One editor quoted the director talking about a certain French rating. Then another editor wrote, "But France doesn't have that, France has this." That sort of discussion belong here, on the talk page, and not on the article page itself.

In any event, if the director misspoke about the nomenclature of the French ratings system, that seems a very minor point. I would advise leaving that out and just having a single factual sentence saying, "In France it was rated such-and-such." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the rating as PG-13 is a WP:WORLDVIEW fail. I definitely did not write that. Older revisions (diff) described it as "PG" (and most definitely not the American PG-13). Rupert Murdoch and the Sunday Times have increasingly taken down or hidden their content behind a paywall so the interview is difficult to recheck against but I do know I wrote what Vaughan actually said. -- Horkana (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French ratings do not seem to include anything obviously analogous to "PG". It seems the film the film received a U (Universal) rating with a special warning, which must have been parental the equivalent guidance. -- Horkana (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dug out precisely the edit where I added the mention of PG rating. -- Horkana (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and just stating the rating wouldn't be notable, only the fact that the director thought it was surprisingly low is what made it WP:NOTABLE. This is is a case were blandly stating the facts and leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions would be failure since the director has stated an opinion. You could possibly rephrase it to work around his incorrectly referring to it as "PG" but it is interesting because of the contrast to other ratings and notable because Vaughn mentioned it. -- Horkana (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

I feel the 'Controversy' section should be removed due to lack of insignificance. This is an R-Rated movie, I can not even imagine to comprehend why this is such a BFD in a movie in no way directed towards young children. It is not the most violent film depicting children so why should reviews such as Robot Eberts be taken with more than a grain of salt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobra4455 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainmentlastold/ci_14884689

I'm not sure how you can make the bit about Katie Deauxma relevant, it's just one part of a slideshow and there isn't much text to work with there.
The reviews comparing the film to the comic is interesting but how do you plan to integrate it into the article? A lot of editors will delete a "Differences" section which is why I tried to include Writing/Development details instead to get in comments about the changes. -- Horkana (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be used to show how reviewers view her character's personality/actions... as in she is referred to by "So and so" as "This and this" or "So and so" says she does "this and this"
If a differences section is sourced to reliable secondary sources which explicitly state what those differences are, then such a section should not be deleted
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found: Taylor, James. "Kick-Ass Version 2.0: The Superhero's Navigation of Comic Books, Film and Digital Media" (PDF). Writing Visual Culture. ISSN 2049-7180.

Stuff to archive

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damon MacCready's wife

In the movie it clearly shows that Damon MacCready's wife committed suicide with pills. It clearly also presents it as Damon MacCready blames Frank D'Amico for his wife's death.

Yet the article and many people claim that she dies in childbirth.

Chloe Moretz even claims in an interview that Damon's wife/Mindy's mother died in childbirth. BUT, she also says herself that at the time she hadn't seen the whole movie and was ignorant of much of the plot. She could simply have been mistaken.

Gringo300 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the movie itself is a little fuzzy on this. First they show the pill thing and then it goes into the "out of tragedy Mindy was born" bit showing the wife in a hospital. These events seem to contradict each other but I figured the mom's attempt with the pills was at first unsuccessful but contributed to her death in childbirth or the doctors failed at saving her life but were able to deliver the baby postmortem. We can't really use either explanation though since it would just be original research. I do feel it is incorrect of the article to state that she died in childbirth since we are clearly presented with a suicide attempt in the film. Millahnna (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit excessive to tag the entire article as in dispute for this one plot point. You could have just asked. See also {{Disputed-section}}.
The film never outright says she committed suicide, we cannot say it was "clearly" suicide because of the way MacCready phrases the story. The facts are: she was depressed and taking too many pills; she died in childbirth; and although suicide is a likely implication of those statements it is still a logical leap to presume she intentionally committed suicide. The important plot point is that Mac Cready blames D'Amico for her death, anything else is extra. I tried to accomodate other editors who added more information but I did make cuts when editors asserted it was suicide. It a little annoying being forced to avoid easy implications but Wikipedia does claim to be an encyclopedia and should just state the facts, although if you want to be sneaky with your wording you can easily lead readers right up to the same conclusions without actually saying it outright, but then you get caught by the arbitrary word count again. -- Horkana (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Archive:

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameos

I reverted the addition of more cameos and minor cast. I did so for serveral reasons, the editor removed properly referenced information from actors discussing their roles, and did not follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide edit summaries to explain their edits.

I tried to find some references to not just WP:VERIFY the minor roles but also to try and find a link that would help show they were a little more WP:NOTABLE. Particularly I was hoping to find a link that mentioned that Craig Ferguson was topping the box office that week with both a cameo in Kick-Ass and also as a voice in How To Train Your Dragon, but have not yet been able to find a suitable source that notices it.

I was able to find references that help show the minor role played by Yancy Butler was notable [1] [2] and I'll probably get around to adding them later.

John Romita Jr. as a barista [3] and we should be able to do something with an article where Romita talks about the "controversy" and there's another promising looking article interviewing Romita with links to other Kick-Ass interviews but I hate it when they don't provide a transcript and I haven't watched the video yet.

Mark Millar had a cameo as a drunk (also [4]) that was cut from the film. If we wanted to put in a cultural references section Millar mentions several comic books that were deliberately included and that he nudged director Vaughn to keep them in shot. There's still quite a bit more that could be added to this article, the news links aren't dead yet. -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC) -- Horkana (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a helpful tip: Unless the news links have a robot that prevents library archiving, they can be archived in current form at the not-profit Webcitation.org. I've begun adding a Webcitation archive link every time I add a footnote or EL, to help combat link rot. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good tip but I'm already aware of it but only use it on special occassions, and even then only on the very best few sources that are pivotal to an article. WebCitation provide a good services but it does take time to put in all the information. If I were trying to push this article up a class to Good Article or Featured Article I'd certainly backup a few links at that stage (and when a citation has a proper archiveurl and other important details filled out and is pretty much finished I don't mind so much if people want to a remove a few line breaks, but stripping out all spacing and indentation is just ugly).
As you can probably see I went ahead and included the non-cameo by Millar and the barely there cameo from Romita (it was only the back of his head). -- Horkana (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm just glad you decided to stick around! A careful editor who knows who to use good cites and write knowledgeably and NPOV! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horkana is attempting to start an edit war

Despite the praise Horkana received in an earlier section of this talk page, he seems more interested in making this article his personal domain, auto-reverting any changes that he deems unacceptable with the apparent intent of instigating an edit war. The plot summary is now SHORTER than you are claiming it is (less than 800, not "more than 1000", and it was nearly 1000 when I started attempting to edit this crap), and the edit history is not the place for discussions of content. Auto-reverting someone else's changes is lazy and unproductive. See a problem? Try fixing it, instead of auto-reverting and abusing the history to make a point that is no longer valid. In the ten minutes it took me to pare down the section, he made no fewer than four unconstructive edits for the sole purpose of loading the history with combative messages, one of them disguised as SmackBot. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. You failed to even follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide an edit summary for your changes, which might go some way to showing good faith. When I checked after your edits the plot summary was just over 1000 words (although you did later reduce the word count). There was little way of knowing if you were just another lazy Anon IP dumping a bloated new plot summary on the article, for someone else to fix, or if you had actually taken into account that the plot summary had gotten the way it was after many small changes by various different editors. Yes admittedly it has gotten a bit crufty since I last tackled it but there was no edit summary or explanation of any kind what the intent of your edits was.
You asserted the old section was "inaccurate & awkwardly constructed plot" only after you had expadned it. Your plot summary was not without flaws either. The way you added line breaks to the Plot summary made comparision very difficult to compare the changes to what was there before.
After you bothered to provide an edit summary I reluctantly went along with your changes, and worked to fix your version, explaining my changes as I went. If an edit war was my intetion I'd have reverted immediately and not even bothered. Twice removed the speculation you added. You should have worked to gradually the fix the old plot summary, making smaller identifiable changes. If you take it up with an admin that is very likely what they will ask you to do anyway.
That you think I faked an edit by Smackbot is ridiculous, you only make yourself look bad by even suggesting it. You expect a lot of good faith from me when you don't show much yourself. When you're done giving-out to me about my edits maybe you could make it clearer what you feel was missing from the plot summary and needed or still needs to be changed. Did Red Mist really contact Kick-Ass "A week later" to setup the trap, that seems oddly specific and I don't recall it being mentioned in the film. I'd like to rephrase the bit about Marcus Williams, it is good that his difference of opinion with BigDaddy is mentioned and I'd like it in the article but before it was too difficult to explain succintly as it happened in the film and it was easier to cut it out and keep the word count closer to what was recommended. There were other minor issues I'd have to check back to the film a get back to later. -- Horkana (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life influence?

There was a recent news story concerning real-life citizens donning costumes and actually patrolling crime-infested areas, notably Washington state. It was reported here. Is this relevant to the article? --Limxzero (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how bad the web has gotten, people don't even know they are doing it. if you are going to link to an article then try to say it was reported in The Sun. I know everyone does it but it is terribly poor writing to and web design to say click here.
Anyhow to answer your question go here. Just kidding, the most appropriate place to that sort of thing would be article on Real-life superheros. Although the Sun includes a picture and name drops Kick-Ass in the title, there is nothing in the text actually claiming these guys were influenced by the Kick-Ass (film) or Kick-Ass (comics) so it doesn't belong here.
The Sun isn't a particularly reliable source, not as bad as the National Enquirer, but you do have to be extremely careful about how you use it, so most editors generally don't. (For example, we aren't supposed to speculate and draw our own conclusions but we are allowed to point out that publications like the Sun are speculating.) More importantly you can probably search for better news stories about "Rain City Superhero Movement" as it is very likely a rewrite of a story from another source, especially since it is an American story being written about in a British publication. -- Horkana (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

The "Controversy" section seems to be unclear to some editors. I will try to explain.

The section contains complaints about the film from before the film was released. They are not reviews. The British newspapers The Daily Mail and The Telegraph are both know to take a conservative viewpoint, sometimes making a reactionary outspoken comment to generate a reaction from their readers. (There are satirical website such as the Daily Mail headline generator and satirical bingo cards for all the buzzwords and hot button issues they are known to exploit, it's hilarious when it isn't tragically sad but to be fair the celebrity sections of most newspapers are desperately unreliable and thankfully most can considered credible on certain points of view and at least a reliable indicator of certain groups likely to claim offense.)
The Guardian often serves as a counterpoint to The Mail or Telegraph, the Guaridan being considered left of British politics. The Guardian group also publishers the Observer newspaper, and both are included in the Critical response section as a counterpoint to the remarks in the controversy section.

The stereotypical Daily Mail reader (or Telegraph reader) is expected to be socially conservative and might be offended by the violence of the film Kick-Ass. The would not be considered part of the intended audience of the film and would even seem unlikely to choose to see the film. With this cultural background and context it is very relevant that Mark Millar is in fact a Daily Mail reader.

I fully understand the need to follow WP:WORLDVIEW and try to avoid too many cultural assumptions. Some editors have deleted the whole controversy section, and large chunks of the Critical response section, failing to understand that a viewpoint from the United Kindom is relevant to this film. It is because of that I fully understand the need to make the article clear and understandable to readers from North America and not make too many assumptions about cultural viewpoints. There is certainly no reason to delete a section that has been properly sourced without discussing or tagging as in need of clarification{{clarify}}. The section is not any less relevant, it only means it needs to be rephrased to be clearer for readers not already familiar with the cultural bias of the British Media to show this was a controversy even if it seems implausible or ridiculous it was quite real. -- Horkana (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passage itself

With all respect to Horkana, with whom I've spoken often and whose work I have rightly praised, I think some compromise may be in order with, as he notes, a section that some editors feel is unnecessary at all. I agree with him that a notable controversy was generated regarding Hit Girl, and I believe many RS cites are available to support this
Here is the topic sentence, prior to Millar's quote:
When asked what the typically conservative Daily Mail readers would think Millar noted he himself is a Daily Mail reader and joked he was very comfortable with the film
Leaving aside the fact that we have no RS citation for the claim that Daily Mail readers are typically conservative — which is assumption or disallowed "common knowledge" — there are dozens of ostensibly conservative media outlets. Why are we singling this source and not others such as (equally uncited as my claims are) Fox News and the New York Post? The fact that Millar may be a Daily Mail reader is non-notable; perhaps if he were a Daily Mail writer, there would be some relevance. We say Millar "joked" in his reply — and so we don't know how seriously to take his response. Even if the question of what Daily Mail readers think even mattered in the larger sense, Millar's joking answer is too vague to have any meaning.
I'm not sure why this vague, minor claim about a single newspaper is becoming such an issue. It makes assumptions: Even if we have citation for the newspaper being conservative, that does not mean, ipso facto, that its readers may not like Hit Girl's violence in the movie. Young-male conservatives in the U.S. don't appear to have any problem with it, for example.
I don't believe that these uncited assumptions about one newspaper's mythical "typical reader" adds any encyclopedic value to the topic of this movie's controversy. And even if somehow it did, Millar's answer is too vague to know how serious he is with his flippant, facetious-seeming reply.
Could we not find some more solid and larger worldview-ish news item than this to replace it with, please? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I noted that some editors deleted the section I did not intend to characterise it in any way as "some editors feel is unnecessary" I believe it was because: they didn't understand why critics from outside America were being included (a lack of WP:WORLDVIEW); they didn't understand why these particular critics were being included since they offered less insightful comments than say Ebert; and it is perhaps not as clear as it should be that much of the controversy was based on the trailers, before the film was released, criticized by people who had not seen the film nor were likely to see the film.
Daily Mail readers are typically conservative
From the wikipedia Daily Mail article (citations are in that article):
According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative Party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats.
Under Dacre, the Mail has a reputation for a conservative editorial stance
Perhaps I should rephrase to make it clearer that this isn't original research. When the STV article wrote "“But I think it’s quite funny, because everybody always says ‘What do you think the Daily Mail readers are going to say?’, and they always use that as the description." it seemed to me like a fair way to rephrase that. As for "Millar joked" that too could be viewed as poor rephrasing on my part. The source quoted Millars remarks with the preface "He added, laughing", and I was really trying to avoid going with the most obvious "Millar said" and run the risk of being too repetative but a more objective wording would be fine by me.
It's been a while but when I adde this I'm fairly sure Millar said something similar in other interviews and soundbites, only the one from STV had both video and transcript and came with a bit more context than most. Actually I don't think I've watched the video included in the article more than once, I worked most off the transcript.
Why not Fox News and the New York Post? Well first no one added them to the article. I'm unaware if there was enough controversy in the United States to merit including it. When a review from Ebert was available it was added. The wording
As a film from an English director and Scottish writer, and since the film was released in the United Kindgom before the United States those who made additions to this article earlier had lots of sources from the United Kingdom readily available. I also think it is very important to inlcude a UK perspective on this film.
I hope I've covered most of your concerns and provided you with adequate information to explain why any seemingly speculative claims were unintentional and that I would welcome help rephrasing.
I'm happy enough with this layout but if I was to do it all again I might try to create different subsections to make it clearer to other editors that I was going for a seperation of UK and US critical response.
I probably could have had a whole "response from the Author" section (see Let Me In (film) or gone through various articles and gotten a reponse from the Film makers, and the Cast. Maybe that would be a better way to do it but I think this layout works well enough and isn't wildly inconsistent with other film articles. -- Horkana (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not following the convoluted logic here, and my first instinct is to suggest that if this quote takes so much backstory to explain to the general public that it might not be the most useful quote to include. I appreciate your effort, and you know how much I respect your work — heck, I helped talk you into staying when you were getting frustrated and wanted to quit Wikipedia for a while — and I'm afraid I still don't see how the opinion of not even a real person, but of a single newspaper's assumed average reader, has any meaning.
I feel very strongly that this is perhaps a bit of nationalistic pride getting in the way. Let me, then, suggest a compromise. While I don't believe that this passage, which I consider subjective trivia, belongs in Wikipedia, I'm thinking it might be a better fit at Mark Millar, where presumably it will have, in the larger context of us his life, more meaning than it seems to have here
What do you say? Reasonable compromises between legitimate concerns. I feel just as strongly it should be out as you feel it should be in. Without a lengthy RfC to gain consensus beyond the two of us, would not a compromise be a better solution than reverting each other, since, really, there's no objective way to say that you're correct or that I'm correct. We each believe we're correct. So why not meet each other halfway? Keep this passage if you must, and use it instead at Mark Millar. What do you say? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing other things, I only now noticed your recent commments.
WP:WORLDVIEW is really is not nationalistic pride, I'm not British. The quote would not require any of this backstory to explain to British readers.
RfC ... request for comment, it isn't particuarly difficult to get another opinion WP:3RD. I do accept the section needs some clarifiation, I think we are stuck between two side of a minor WP:WORLDVIEW issue.
It is good of you to try and consider a compromise but this would not be relevant in the Mark Millar article, it's about the reaction to the film, his choice of daily reading is not likely to be notable in his biography without a lot more criticsm directed at him personally. I guess I need to do more to clarify but I thought the STV article was pretty good, it notes that Millar has been asked repeatedly a question of the form "what will the Daily Mail readers think of the film?" with an assumed negative reaction. At the risk of making a bad analogy this is a bit like someone being asked all the time what viewers of "Fox News" would think only to receive the unexpected response that the writer was in fact a big fan of "Fox News".
I'll revist this tomorrow and ask for a third opinion if you don't first. Still it might be difficult to bridge the culture gap, and American might not see the relevance and conversely a British editor might be surprised by how much context this needs. -- Horkana (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, and I appreciate your coming by to discuss. I had been surprised, knowing your very good history as an editor, that you'd made (other, unrelated) article edits after I'd posted this. But as you say, it can be easy to miss a talk-page posting.
I honestly don't believe it's a worldview issue. If it were someone asking, say, Quentin Tarantino his opinion of what Fox News thinks of Reservoir Dogs, I mean ... so what? Everybody has an opinion, and this wouldn't even be Tarantino being asked his reaction to what a specific Fox News movie critic thought — this is the ostensible opinion of some mythical average Fox News viewer. It's all such a house of cards of assumptions, followed by a reply we don't know whether is serious or facetious. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, what a read! Well from my limited experience here we normally shy away from making any inferences on a subject. Furthermore knowing the political leaning of the paper isn't necessary to convey the point to the reader. The fact that the paper finds the role controversial is enough, we need no further explanation. Its no more important than knowing Roger Ebert's political stance. Infact the quote places undue weight on one source over the other. Besides if we are looking for Millar's reaction theres better quote in the same source that address Hit Girl directly rather than the paper;

I think when you watch Hit Girl, when you see the movie in context, it somehow isn’t offensive - maybe to me, maybe I’m so desensitised, I find it quite charming.

Also WP:WORLDVIEW was established by the mere presence of a foreign source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. User:TriiipleThreat by claiming "foreign source" has shown a complete failure to understand the point of WP:WORLDVIEW that is almost offensive. Wikipedia is not American. WP:WORLDVIEW certainly does not exclude local sources either, it only reminds us we must write clearer in a way that international readers can be reasonably expected to understand.
As I said before this article is about a film by a English film maker based on a comic by a Scottish writer. I'm amazed than anyone would even suggest British sources should not be included. -- Horkana (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, I never claimed "Wikipedia is American" nor any other nationality. I take deep offense to you suggesting otherwise. I meant foreign as in outside country of origin of the subject, in other words adding world perspective (this is a good thing). Futhermore I never suggested that Daily Mail should not be used as source when in fact I suggested a better quote from the same source. In the future please read more carefully. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • A few things jump out at me...
    • Basically, the section sounds like a paraphrase of a reporter fishing for a sound bite, one that possibly takes a shot at another news organization, and the person being interviewed deflecting the question. There seems to be little of use there for this article, paraphrased or directly quoted.
    • I'm wary of arguments, or sources, that blur the distinction between "conservative" and "Conservative". Long and short, a person can hold conservative views on specific topics regardles of belonging to or voting for the Conservative party.
    • If there is/was a widely reported flap over an aspect of a film, it is worth noting in the articles. But that would normally take more than one source being present in the article. If Hit Dirl was a hot button topic in the British media, there should be more than the one source for the critical and/or social disapproval.
- J Greb (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section started off as being was much more about the UK Controvery that was generated before on the trailers before the film had even been released. The Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraphy often raise similar issues, sometimes the red-top tabloids join them.
Somehow we ended up with the Australian Telegraph in that section. Remarks by Eberts were added there too at somet The reviews/critical response section does include comments from the UK Telegraph critic. It is probably still possible to dig out more UK sources complaining about how people might react to Hit Girl. Elsewhere in the article (a citation labelled "Millarmoviefreak" I think) it was recently added that Millar was surprised they got away with as little controversy as they did.
Anyhow I thought it was interesting how when everyone expected the supposed archetypal Daily Mail reader to be offended by the film that the writer would turn around and say he himself is a Daily Mail reader. (I though the Fox News analogy might be more convincing.) I'll leave it for now, I thought the writer himself saying how he ~~keeps getting asked that~~ would have been enough. For now I'll leave it out but I may revisit it if more sources become available (i.e. I feel like taking the time to hunt them down). -- Horkana (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, Horkana, on whatever we might do to expand the Controversy section in general, as appropriate. We're on the same page. I'd agree with the others above, though, that this particular example, with newspapers creating controversy as opposed to reporting controversy, is tempest-in-a-teapot. There are plenty of independent groups and cultural experts who can more authoritatively weigh in. No question that I'm with you there. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Characters page?

Should I start a common List of Kick-Ass characters page? I think it would be helpful to have a place describing creation/conception and reception of specific characters. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. Between Kick-Ass (comics) and Kick-Ass (film) I think we have it covered. Most of the coverage of the characters is in-universe, it is only really Hit-Girl that stood out enough to draw direct commentary from secondary sources. Kick-Ass 2 does introduce quite a few more characters so not be such a bad idea later on but I don't particuarly like that type of article. Having said that you can always be adventurous and go and start any article you like.
I may as well mention, there's a book - making the movie or something I forget the exact title, I bought it shortly after the film was released, and it is gathering dust but - it is loaded with way more information.
I've been meaning to add from it and I'll have to be very careful about not relying on it too heavily but there's lots in there and it helps backup a lot of the information we already have. Beside the reluctant to put in all that effort knowning how easily it can be trashed I also think it looks terribly untidy when an article has lots of single page book citations, and it is not at all easy to do it in a tidy way. I'll get around to it eventually. -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking Millar, Mark. Kick-Ass: Creating the Comic, Making the Movie (Titan Books, 2010), ISBN-10 1-8485-6409-0, ISBN-13 978-1-8485-6409-1, I say, Yeah, bro! I'm with you, and I'll help keep your work from being trashed. With the caveat that it's an authorized, promotional book and could be self-serving, I can't imagine any better, more solid source of production details. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. The book is a great source.
Character articles shouldn't and don't consist of in-universe stuff. Usually the information is creation and conception (from primary sources, usually) and reception (views from secondary sources)
It can be a standalone article if you have sufficient amounts of all three.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys think we are closer to making the character page? Now the characters have more and more info about them WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what you added feels forced. It is interesting but would fit better elsewhere in the article, rather than the Cast section where I'd stick more to Casting information and character interpretation from the actor themselves.
I'd have added much of the comments from Goldman under writing for example, and I would largely leave comments from critics about how they view the characters to the Critical response section. If we had a little more information, I'd create a section for costume design under production as I think it would allow for comparisions to and differences from the comic book. I assume you noticed I removed the notes about Lyndsy Fonseca/Katie Deauxma because they seemed particularly incongruous. Oh, I should mention that older versions of the critical response section had one critic suggesting there were Lolita-esque aspects to the Big Daddy/Hit-Girl dynamic and that a better director might have brought them out. That amongst other things was gutted from the article and I intend to restore at some point.
I though you might have just gone ahead and started a characters article using the comic book article as your starting off point. I'm surprised you are even asking. The comparison of Big Daddy to Frank Castle (The Punisher) is quite different from the much more Batman orientated character of the film. That Kick-Ass describes Katie as his Mary Jane Watson, describing both her and how he sees himself like Spider-man (I think there are other aspects of his character informed by Spider-man too). Also in a List of Kick-Ass characters article the perception of critics and other third parties of how they see the Characters will not seem as out of place as it does here in a Cast section. There is information directly from the plot you could use quite differently, I liked the comments about how Kick-Ass was like Wolverine since he is full of metal but that again is something I coudln't fit into the tight plot section and wouldn't put in cast section either. If you are going to create a separate article just do it. -- Horkana (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York

It has been added to the plot summary again* that Dave is a "New York" teenager. That Kick-Ass is set in a fictional New York is not in doubt, Millar has said as much. Also NYPD is a bit of a give-away, amongst other things. (* Was added maybe twice before.)
The problem is that the location is never said in the film, and although sources can be provided, to say Dave is an average "New York" teenager gives it undue emphasis and diminishes the description. Attempting to be more specific - where the film does not - makes him less universal, and is not an improvement.
It might be good when talking about the filming locations to mention that the filming locations were standing in for New York. -- Horkana (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The location (state or city) is given/shown several times in the film. Firstly, WCBS-TV (including "Eye on New York") is referenced several times. In the fictional "Eye on New York" broadcast "Hamilton Park" is referenced. Either D'Amico himself or a goon says "Man, if you're right, we're gonna look like the biggest bunch of pussies in New York" when discussing the possibility of Kick-Ass eating into the criminal empire. Red Mist's car has a New York license plate. The TV announcers refer to him as a "New York" superhero in a television broadcast leading to the torture scene. Thirdly you see the Brooklyn Bridge in the shot of the sequence when Kick Ass takes hit girl in his jetpack away from the D'Amico stronghold.
When answering questions, you need to address the "Who, What Where, When Why" - "New York City" is clearly the "Where"
Yes, there is the NYPD reference already made, but we may as well say "this takes place in New York City" which means the NYPD reference doesn't seemingly come out of nowhere
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean WhisperToMe, but I do have a problem with the specific wording that Horkana notes above, "average New York teenager". In terms of how the locale relates to the plot itself, it's just plain bad writing. I don't think, in light of your comments, there should be a problem with noting that the setting is NYC. But that phrasing puts more emphasis on that local than the film itself does and results in a clunky sentence, to my eye. Millahnna (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I'll see if I can find a better way to note the setting in the plot section... WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I know what you're trying to do - and I wish you could have said it in an edit summary sooner - I will not revert it this time, although I still think this is only slightly better than before. The most obvious opening wording, to just start off with "In New York city" does not seem right either, but maybe if I chew over it I can suggest an alternative wording. -- Horkana (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Set in NYC" certainly seems OK. But trust me, there's no such thing as a "typical NY teenager." Upper East Side Manhattan teens are different from Upper West Side teens, and by and large they're unlike Bensonhurst, Brooklyn teens. And even these are wildly overstated generalizations. This is to say nothing of the fact that he tries to be a superhero and pretends to be gay, so I think "typical" goes out the window regardless! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

I hate dead links so very much. We've News Corporation to blame for a few, Hollywood reporter to blame for a few others, and if you check too many Variety.com links in one day they hit you with a block too (easily gotten around but annoying nonetheless).

Anyhow I'm going to use this subsection to gather additional sources for some of the links that have gone dead. Please note there is a big difference between a dead links and something that was never sourced at all, and links being stuck behind a paywall fall under WP:SOURCEACCESS.

There is a dead link for Hollywood reporter but having the a text quote I was able to find a newsfeed where part of the article had been cached and I'll quote another chunk (15.08.2008 THR.com meldet...)

Vaughn first brought the project to Sony, which distributed his "Layer Cake," but the studio balked at the violence, which he refused to tone down. Several other studios expressed interest but demanded that the protagonists' ages be upped. Vaughn, who most recently co-wrote and directed the international hit "Stardust," now is going it alone.
Vaughn wrote the adaptation with Jane Goldman and is producing with his Marv Films partner Kris Thykier. A fall start date is eyed.
The project will be a 180-degree turn for the actors involved

More later. --Horkana (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horkana, my brother, we are so totally on the same page about Hollywood Reporter sites. Here's what I posted at Talk:Thor (film) that, given the above, bears my adding the pertinent portion here...--Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing The Hollywood Reporter

I've learned to use WebCitation.org for most every citation I add to Wikipedia since links go dead with alarming frequency. But it's especially important to add a WebCitation or some other archive link for The Hollywood Reporter citations since they're only available to the general public at the original URL for a limited time. They then go into a subscriber archive with a different URL and may or may not be searchable. (You know how internal search engines are.)

It is crucial with The Hollywood Reporter citations to include an archive link, which is a snapshot of the page as it appears that day. If the URL changes or the article goes away, the cited information remains available. It doesn't seem useful to have "dead link" appear after every Hollywood Reporter cite a month or two after we give it.

Using http://webcitation.org takes less than 60 seconds once you've done it a couple of times.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I cannot smack them with a clue-by-four my inclination is to avoid them, and I suppose I should make an effort to replace their links when I see them. If I cannot find adequate alternative sources I'll try and use WebCite more often (maybe I should script it, but that would be admitting to myself just quite how much time I waste here if I have to go to the effort of writing a program to automate it). -- Horkana (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. The bitch is that THR does really good primary reporting, often not readily appearing elsewhere. Of course, Variety, The Wrap and Deadline.com (where Variety's Michael Fleming is now the major reporter) are also very good. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast lists

I almost always agree with Horkana, though in this instance we probably should discuss the issue of cast credits. Some of the minor cast-members, who don't have their own bluelinked articles that presumably confirm their credits, were tagged with citation requests. My good colleague Horkana believes, in good faith, that these tags are unnecessary since "They're in the credits. They're on IMDB (which is reliable for this sort of info). There's really no reason to doubt these Cast members. This is unusally strict beyond what WP:MOSFILM expects."

Actually .... What Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film) says is that casts should be discussed in prose, and only "[f]ailing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits."

I think most of us are fine with a cast list, which is very standard in film references. But MOSFILM here is silent on verification. Now, since MOSFILM prefers prose cast sections, and since prose claims are routinely cited, there's no reason to think that simply because we're presenting the information in a list that MOSFILM wouldn't want claims to be cited.

Now, we can't use IMDb for that — WP:Films even says here that, "The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source ... Its content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing has been found unacceptable."

However — fortunately — when a movie is on DVD, as Kick-Ass is, we can simply attribute the DVD as the source. Anyone could look that up. And it would provide a bulwark against smart-alecks putting in joke credits, as people do all too frequently. Certainly, seeing the credit "Stu 'Large' Riley as Huge Goon" may reasonably strike one as some prankster's insertion!

Now, I don't have a copy of the Kick-Ass DVD, so I can't check to see if Large is on there. What I think would be appropriate would be for someone to check these credits against the DVD, and if they're accurate, to say (as some Wikipedia lists already do), "Source:[footnote here saying something like "End-credits, Kick-Ass DVD, Lionsgate Video"]"

There's a whole other issue of how many bit players we should include — some epic movies have dozens and dozens of cast-members, and I'm not sure how important "Huge Goon" is. But for now, we're talking about WP:V. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made it clearer that I'd checked the credits (see also below). That you do not have a copy of the DVD falls under WP:SOURCEACCESS which is an annoying but not unfair guideline.
The guidelines mostly summarize the de facto consensus of how film articles are written. Sometimes people try to shape the film articles by gaining a small consensus in a disucssion on the project guidelines. There were some editors in Project film pushing to ditch Cast lists entirely, the result of that is a few Featured articles with a Casting section but an absolutely minimal list of cast. The wording is influenced by that but people actively editing articles haven't entirely bought into that in the same way as they have other more straightforward guidelines, and mostly what happens is editors will add the top cast not the entire cast, and notable minor roles or cameos might get shoved into a short paragraph, much as we have done with cameos and cast who were cut.
Editors have gotten stricter over time but the Plot and Cast are still not expected to have citations for every entry. There's no harm in having a citation, by all means google and add them but unless there is something extra from the actor it's unnecessary.
The IMDB baby got thrown out with the bathwater and WP:RS is a mess. The National Enquirer is not a reliable source except when bizarrely sometimes it is. Some editors would discount a source by reputation alone rather than accepting that even the trashiest gossip magazines if used with restraint are enough to verify that two people dated (restraint being that you ditch all the speculative). That problem hasn't made it much clearer, point is WP:RS can be interpreted with surprising flexibility.
(as some Wikipedia lists already do), "Source:[footnote here saying something like "End-credits, Kick-Ass DVD, Lionsgate Video"]"
As I recall people noted that the Infobox effectively already gives that information.
This isn't an issue specific to this article and if you think a higher standard of verification should be required for Cast lists you should raise that question at WT:MOSFILM. You'll get a few comments sure but there are already editors who do not like casts lists but they already have {{Prose}} and WP:NOTABLE at the disposal to cut cast lists down to size. It's hard to be sure what the wider consensus is beyond the few people who discuss these things at WT:MOSFILM but I dont' think most editors have a problem with casts list. -- Horkana (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughtful discussion here and below; I'm hoping to address points raised in both places.
The first thing I need to note is that I'm speaking only about this article; I understand and appreciate your points about IMDb and the National Enquirer and your concerns about consensus at WP:RS, but I'm not sure it's necessary to expand the issue so very, very widely — it obfuscates the issue, and large policy debates are beyond the purview of just two editors. I'm simply asking for citation requests, which is reasonable to do.
Getting to this specific article, then: It's not a matter of my personally having access to the DVD information. I'm saying that anyone can get access to the DVD information — and that is a good thing. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if someone adds information from the DVD that they give that as a source.
I'm sure you wouldn't find that unreasonable, either. The only way to find it unreasonable is if the information did not come from the movie credits on the DVD. In that case, it's fair to ask: Where did the information come from? IMDb? Somewhere else? There's really no reason not to say and remove all doubt. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added citation requests for the Cast section. I removed them, citations are not necessary here, reasonable editors do not expect them here and neither do the project film guidelines WP:MOSFILM, any editor in doubt is welcome to bring this up for discussion at WT:MOSFILM. It is unclear if the edit who added them has a misguided belief that citations are necessary of if someone is just causing grief by excessively tagging.

Citations are needed in a cast list only if a film is still in development but for a released film the cast is as evident as the plot and does not require further confirmation. It is not be unreasonable to ask for citations for any uncredited cast members. For all the abuse IMDB gets as an unreliable source - because it can be edited by users like Wikipedia - the bulk of their information is sourced from press releases and publicity material from the studios and the are reliable up to a point (the aforementioned uncredited cast, being something you would have to question). There is no information beyond actor name character name, if there was further details that might require a citation but in these cases there is not.

The only one of the cast members I had any doubts about was Stu Large Riley but a google search answered that one quickly enough. (There was a separate mention of a WWF wrestler in the cast list but that was removed months and months ago shortly after the film was released as it was unclear if he was cut or never made it into the film at all.)

If an editor wants to argue that the minor cast are non-notable and wants to remove them entirely that is a different question (unhelpful and doesn't WP:IMPROVE anything but not against the rules). I'm having difficulty finding who exactly added the tags and when, failing to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide an edit summary shows a serious lack of good faith but I'm willing to gave a small amount of time for an editor to explain this unsual onerous requirement before I again remove the citation tags. -- Horkana (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the edit. Hiding in plain sight and does actually have an edit summary, I didn't expect this from an editor who seems to have been doing this a while. -- Horkana (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might find this set of cast names and pictures helpful. -- Horkana (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I'm a little surprised at Horkana's tone; it's as if he didn't read my post above at all. Rather than writing civil responses to my points, he's tossing around labels like "unreasonable" and "onerous."
First, I give my reasons and I believe I backed them up properly and appropriately. Second, I don't think asking for one word and a footnote is onerous. And I really don't think asking people to verify when they make a claim is onerous. And finally, I'm very, very surprised that he would point to some anonymous movie-fan's website, http://www.aveleyman.com, as a resource when it clearly doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS.
I'm not going to address the uncivil terms "misguided" and "causing grief," neither of which assumes good faith.
I'm asking with all due respect that we discuss this without what is coming across as attitude. If we could stick to the specific points I brought up, that would be a constructive start. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the tone. There is no need for citations for those cast members. I thought a drive by IP Editor had added them but I'm surprised to see you put in the request for citation. It is odd that you even would ask, this is an unusual request for a film article. The fan website was to give you pictures with the names by way of reminder, I wasn't suggesting it as as source. I explained above the situations where a citation might be expected, this isn't one of them.
I still do not see why you tagged those 3 cast members in particular?
You can buy the home video if you really doubt these people are listed in the credits, or you could google for the film the credits are at about 52 minutes. This isn't a source we'd be allowed reference either but no source is expected, no one seriously doubts these people are in the film. -- Horkana (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an edit conflict but a complete whoosh over my head missed your Talk page edit completely. -- Horkana (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked IMDB and I can't find any reference to "Aivis Vlasevičs" except for websites word-for-word repeating what is on this article. -- 72.214.163.68 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of John Williams' Superman theme

The Music section says:

Although not included on the score album, the film also made use of John Williams score from Superman for the first scene of the film, with the metal winged superhero.[6]

The reference is to an MTV article which says "That music playing in the background? That's John Williams' iconic score from the Christopher Reeves [sic]-starring "Superman" series."

Whatever the MTV page says, it seems that the piece of music playing in that scene composed for this film and designed to only resemble Williams' work. Having just checked the DVD, Williams isn't credited in the film's music credits, and on the commentary, Vaughn says "I'm very proud of the music here -- it took us about eight months and four composers to get it right. We wanted to do a kind of John Williams-style score which then morphs into a modern-day Kick-Ass identity, shall we say. Henry Jackman wrote this theme..." Nick RTalk 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hit girl costume 350.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hit girl costume 350.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel page

Perhaps it is time for the sequel to have a page of its own now that the film is officially happening. The information regarding the sequel on here can be added to the sequel's page as well. Revan4000 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing by 92.43.64.1

Can we have the following IP address 92.43.64.1 blocked from editing as they are consistently vandalizing this page Bossie52864 (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional site

I found http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/IWillKickAss.com which was an official promotion site, but the archives don't seem to work... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Blend is OBVIOUSLY a blog.

It is a group blog, and blogs are not acceptable references via WP:SPS.

I shall remove the reference from the article.76.173.178.162 (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kick-Ass (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kick-Ass (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kick-Ass (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kick-Ass (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kick-Ass (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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Kick-Ass(film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kick-Ass(film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Kick-Ass(film) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kick-Ass_(film)&oldid=1204206960"