Talk:Hook (film)

	Hook (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 17, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Declaring that this (or any) film is a "cult film" is problematic. Especially in this case: It was a major-studio production, by a big-name director, with an all-star cast, which did great box office, and was nominated for several awards. If it still has devoted fans, that might make it a "classic", but that's not a cult. It's in a whole different league from indie films which have become popular in spite of those humble beginnings, or from box-office flops which have found niche audiences that still love them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of a "cult film" is based on subjective opinion. There's obviously no standard definition, and opinions of what makes something a "cult" film vary. (I find the notion of this as a cult film difficult to fathom.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman), has returned and taken his children for revenge.

How did he do that?80.141.161.90 (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to explain everything that happens in the movie. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility would be to write "It is never explained how he succeeded in doing that. Neither he nor his ship were able to fly."80.141.182.177 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the responsibility of an encyclopedia either. Read

WP:OR. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it is not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to discuss content and information of a topic. Wikipedia has a standing rule of "Do not question anything" Railfan2012 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not being facetious when I answer: “Magic.” Merry medievalist (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ship was able to fly. In the book, Peter brings the Darlings and the Lost Boys back to London aboard her. (His tendency to behave more and more like a pirate captain as they travel is a problem.) Merry medievalist (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banning? That does not make sense. It sounds like they are saying Panning, Even when Hook says Peter's last name you can see his lips form the "P" sound. It also makes more sense for Peter Pan to change his last name to Panning. Railfan2012 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to question things on Wikipedia, but it's well documented that the characters' last name in the movie is "Banning", and whether you like that fact, or agree with Spielberg's choice of name... really isn't the point. The fact that you – like many other people – apparently misheard it while watching the film is all the more reason why it's important for Wikipedia to have the correct information. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well documented? Wikipedia is not "well documentation". And Wikipedia is not always correct either. Closed captioning shows the name as "Panning", just so you know. Railfan2012 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The credits say "Peter Banning / Peter Pan ROBIN WILLIAMS", discussion over. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is well documented outside of Wikipedia, including the captioning on the DVD I just checked. (I can't explain why yours would say "Panning"... possibly a different edition or bootleg, made without adequate proofreading?) If it helps you accept it: In the movie Peter explains that he was adopted by Hank and Jane Banning, and took their last name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, closed captioning is not a reliable source of information. Baffling errors are rampant, and putting a P where a B should be is small potatoes compared with transcribing “gentles” (as in gentlemen) as “gentiles.” (That’s from “Admen.”) Sometimes mistakes completely transform the meaning of the dialogue. End of rant. Merry medievalist (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the first paragraph in the lead section. The first time I read it the last two sentences of the paragraph felt choppy and out of place. I tried to make the paragraph flow and not feel so forced. Jwood57 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hook (video game) redirects here, to the section Video Games. Yet, this section doesn't exist any more. So, what do? 87.151.140.126 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some debatable info here. In what way does E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial explore "a dysfunctional father-son relationship"? Also the first line of the paragraph "Spielberg found close personal connection to the film" is - in my opinion - not needed. I do not know Steven Spielberg of course, but I would think he would argue that he finds a 'personal connection' with ALL his films. I think the paragraph would still convey the same information without this line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.153.58 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg stated more than once that E.T. was based on the imaginary alien friend he created for himself when his parents divorced, and that the film was about that time. (See Wikipedia article on the film.) In E.T., Elliott’s father is absent —that is pretty dysfunctional. Merry medievalist (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hook (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050210040426/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

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.

• 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) 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read that she worked as a script doctor on this film 188.29.134.80 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this can strictly be called a sequel, as there are a lot of inconsistencies with the original story. Joenthwarls (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]