Talk:Hell's Angels (film)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Aviation / War films / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	War films task force
	World War I task force

Film: War / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Plot summary

Karl, according to the text, joins the German Air Force, but the Zeppelin in which he flies is wholly crewed by the German Navy, whose uniform he is wearing.

Hors-la-loi 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Older comments

How much money did the film ultimately lose (or make)?

It made around $8 million (overall in that year), but since Hughes spent $4,000,000 of his own money, he did not gain much of a profit. To earn it back, he simply re-released the film many times during that and the following year.

The Aviator

In section "The Aviator," : "The film depicts Hughes' struggles with Nielan and the extravangant extents to which he went to ensure accuracy throughout production."

This is nonsense. That part of the film possibly depicts Hughes' struggle with Noah Dietrich over financing, but Nielan is portrayed nowhere in the film. Nor is any other director. Hughes is portrayed in the director role from the first scene in the film covering his Hollywood career.

The "extravagant extents to which [Hughes] went [sic] to ensure accuracy," clause is also off the mark. The film depicts the extravagant measures Hughes implemented to ensure that the dogfight footage looked more convincing on the screen. There is a world of difference between the two concepts. Drogue 04:36, May 28, 2005

Just cleaned the section up somewhat. GeeJo 12:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Slightly modified the grammar and replaced the phrase 'part of the movie' to a more descriptive phrase 'act of the movie'.

Added a date to the phrase, today's money, at the bottom of the first section - I guess the OP hopes that this page will be around for a few years to come :-) Also, streamlined the sentence a little (it was a touch informal and had two prices in 1930's and today's dollars - couldn't figure out why...) --Oscar Bravo 10:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Whale of an Omission (sorry, couldn't resist)

According to a few sources I've seen, including IMDb and Leonard Maltin's movie guide, James Whale actually directed much of this movie uncredited. No mention here. What's up? Any objections to me adding this tidbit? Cris Varengo 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Source for the names and details of the production deaths is "Production of 'Hell's Angels' Cost the Lives of Three Aviators," Syracuse Herald, Dec. 28, 1930, p. 59Bentruwe (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Angels (film) → Hell's Angels — It's the only thing on the disambiguation page with the name (with the apostrophe) —Reginmund 08:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support - Per reasons given Reginmund 08:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for one thing it is not the "only thing on the disambiguation page with the name (with the apostrophe)" -- the 3d squadron of the Flying Tigers were known as Hell's Angels. Besides that, it is easily confused with the motorcycle group. older ≠ wiser 11:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - even some of the bikers use "Hell's Angels" for the club - see for example the book mentioned. Also as above, several others use the apostrophe. -- Beardo 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Actually, the first other use of the apostrophe doesn't even have an article on it. Since it is easy to confuse with the motorcycle, group, you might as well put a disambiguation link. That's what they're for. Parable1991 21:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The bikers named themselves after this movie so it must be notorious. 71.109.186.47 06:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reasoning is incorrect, just looking at the DAB page, that is obvious. 70.55.91.131 07:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no controversy. The bikers don't use an apostrophe. 67.151.178.146 19:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above reasons, and because the possible minor inconvenience of anyone searching for the film is far outweighed by the potential benefits of avoiding confusion when searching for the other terms. An apostrophe is hardly a significant distinction. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Hell's Angels should redirect to Hells Angels, no-one searching is likely to know about this distinction. Kappa 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: The claim above is not true (see 2nd item on the dab page), and very few people who are not Hells Angels bikers know that it is not spelled with an apostrophe; the vast majority of hits for "Hell's Angels" will be people who know proper grammar trying to find the motorcycle club, but unaware of their evidently intentional misspelling. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Reasoning is incorrect!? Do your research! It says on the Hells Angels page that they named themselves after the film! Reginmund 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read a little more carefully -- the motorcycle club took their name from the WWII air units -- which in turn took their names from the film. In any case there are multiple things known by that name. older ≠ wiser 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the film was the first to use "Hell's Angels". It is also the only article to concern that specific text. Problem solved. Reginmund 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First is not the same as primary or best known. There ARE other entities that use the name with the apostrophe. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other entities that do on the DAB page that add something else in. I never said that it is better known. Reginmund 00:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I've already pointed out there is another one listed on the dab page -- the WWI air unit. While the article title is different because the unit is described in the context of a larger unit, the reference requires disambiguation. And then there's the short title of the Hunter S. Thompson book, about the motorcycle club, which only underscores the fact while the official HAMC may eschew the apostrophe, it is nonetheless commonly used with the apostrophe to refer to the group. If you are not making the claim that the film deserves primary topic status, then there is no point to even discussing a move -- there is clearly ambiguity about the name. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That ambiguity would be pointed out when it directs here. The air unit doesn't even have an article so that is obviously subordinate. the book has an appendage in the title. This is the only (and original) use of "Hell's Angels" and maybe we should point that out. We'll always have a DAB page. Reginmund 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations for use

Nathan, Ian (2005). "RWD: Hell's Angels". Empire: 179. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Turner, George (1990). "Hell's Angels' 60th Birthday". American Cinematographer. 71 (7): 96. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Article on the film's first release, its circulation and 'streamlining' over the years, and details of the premiere of the restored film, both in the cinema and on cable tv.)
Brownlow, Kevin (1981). "Flashback: Howard Hughes's maiden flight". American Film: A Journal of the Film and Television Arts. 7 (2): 20, 34, 36. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Article by Kevin Brownlow on the making of the film.)
Combs, R. (1980). "Untitled". Monthly Film Bulletin. 47 (560): 181–182. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"Untitled". Views & Reviews. 5 (2): 26–32. 1973.
"Untitled". Views & Reviews. 4 (4): 42–54. 1973. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"Hughes-Harlow pic on way". Variety (285). January 26, 1977. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (deals with 1924 shooting of "Angels")
Adams, B. (1980). "The screening room". Classic Images (68): 18–20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Some citations for possible use. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

I think the article needs the quote section removed unless more are added. --Mburi11 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it made a profit yet

Summary rewrite

I am about to undertake a major rewrite of the summary. In my mind a lot of pronoun references are unclear, among other things, and the entire thing, again imho, could use some tightening. If anyone has any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace. :) --Reedmalloy (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could include a bit about the history of its restoration? I say this because I remember seeing the Zeppelin footage at the NFT a long time ago when it was in the process of being restored.

Error ?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place; I can't figure out how to use the Talk section properly, for some reason. But I think this phrase: "After attempting to lease all available period aircraft to stall his competitor, Hughes brought a lawsuit through the Caddo Company and the Gainsborough Corporation, that alleged that the screenplay of Hell's Angels was plagiarized.[14]" must have a big typo--wouldn't it be "The Dawn Patrol" that Hughes accused of using a plagiarized script? He wouldn't bring a lawsuit against his own film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belmontian (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) (Moved to proper section MB 15:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hell's Angels (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/20120222065408/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/2487C4581A62D7AB80256F9B006B5706?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/2487C4581A62D7AB80256F9B006B5706?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Angels budget

An editor is repeatedly adding a budget of $4 million to the article using this Time magazine source. This is what the article says: "They knew it had cost more ($3,850,000) to produce the picture than any other in cinema history except Ben Hur ($4,500,000) and Hell's Angels ($4,000,000)". So yes, you can find sources saying that Hell's Angels cost $4 million. However, this source is from 1939 and propagates a lie by Howard Hughes who misrepresented the cost of the film as $4 million. This is not true. The accounts for Hell's Angels were made public after Howard Hughes died and reveal the film in fact cost only $2.8 million. This is explained on p.253 of The speed of sound: Hollywood and the talkie revolution, 1926–1930 by Scott Eyman who teaches film history at the University of Miami. By repeatedly adding the claim that the film cost $4 million you are adding outdated claim which has since been proven to be wrong. This is all explained in the last paragraph of Hell's_Angels_(film)#Production. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is not to claim that the budget was $4 million, but to document that this was a claim. the references are are such and the quote justifies the prior time.com reference. nowhere in the text was there an edit that chaged budget to $4,000,000. Documenting a lie is important. Please agree to stop deleting such documentation.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is documented in the production section. The infobox is for recording the actual budget, not false information. Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a note or something after the infobox's budget figure to guide readers along? Maybe an anchor link to the relevant paragraph? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a hidden note for the benefit of editors. However, I have no problem with adding a visible note for readers. I think an anchor link would be a lot of faffing around though, so it would be better to just add a standard footnote. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]