Talk:Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank

Plot section

Uh, why does the plot description read exactly like a oh-so-~wAcKy~-record-scratch type affair with the ellipse followed by caps? Thats kinda dumb looking here. 76.251.164.216 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I see this has been removed, but was really only a symptom of a problem that goes not only beyond that line, but actually beyond this page. I’ve made a full section elaborating on this. Obviously mostly focused away from the "beyond this page" bit, though, since that’s rather beyond our scope, I’d say. --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m so confused...

A lot of the phrasing (especially the use of the word "seminal" and cast section) seems really out of place here, almost promotional. Also, the sources here aren’t too great, and I’ve seen equally as reliable ones outright contradict much of this, it’s confusing. Really confusing, actually. In fact, generally pretty much every piece of "information" about this movie I could find is almost as baffling as... well... the premise and existence of this movie, really! But I’m getting off-topic here, let’s focus on ourselves for now, try to get this article all cleaned up! --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Director

It has recently come to my attention on the website of the animation company that is producing this film that There is a new director signed onto the project. Please make this change as soon as possible, thank you Gerferield (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Teaser poster

I say that we should keep the original poster for the film until a new poster surfaces.

ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: That poster is from 2017. Why would we use a 5-year-old poster? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So we can put it there until further notice. ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: It's outdated. Just let that poster be deleted and wait for a new one. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Have you thought of overwriting it? ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: Does that matter? We are NOT adding a 2017 poster for a 2022 film. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Well, I believe we could put a caption saying "Teaser poster with previous release year". ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: Why are you so persistent in adding this poster? Just let it be deleted and add the new one when it is eventually released. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Some Dude, it's a fun image, but adds nothing relevant. A new one will be provided at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Paramount Pictures

I find it hard to believe Paramount Animation distributing a movie on its own; Paramount Pictures has always distributed all its animation division's movies at the very start and still will.

Besides, I checked the source; it says absolutely nothing about Paramount Animation distributing the movie. --XSMan2016 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It does say it's under the banner though--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

For all we know, Paramount Animation might be producing the movie while Paramount Pictures distributes. --XSMan2016 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The film was done and picked up by a distributor--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sky Cinema Release Date

I believe Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank is a Sky Cinema original, so I think the film will be released on July 22, 2022 on Sky. Please put this in the release section. 2A02:C7E:4F1D:4000:151D:241:CCB9:8AE9 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Crediting

pawsoffurymovie.com/synopsis/ This doesn’t prove anything since the other writers were never invovled in the production so far. We can’t credit them til we know they’re involed. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@BMA-Nation2020: I understand that the credits look wrong; if nothing else, Richard Pryor has been dead since 2005. But that's how screenwriting credits work. If the screenplay they wrote was used, they get credited. It doesn't matter when the contributed, and it doesn't matter if they were involved in this production at all.

Believe me, the studio would absolutely say this was just "based on" Blazing Saddles if they could, because then they wouldn't have to pay the original writers as much. You may want to look at WGA screenwriting credit system for examples of how complex this kind of thing can get. Trivialist (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand the system but i don’t trust things that are not right. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

As BMA-Nation2020 and I are bumping up against WP:3RR, anyone else want to update the infobox's credits so they match the official credits? Trivialist (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

You'll forgot to prodive evidence that the writing credits are WGA certified. In my recently reverted edit, I kept the "based on" but used a footnote to explain it for readers, but apparently it's not good enough. BMA-Nation2020, that's just how things are with the crediting system. It's weird sometimes, some people don't even get credited while others do, oh well. The film and the main source says it, we gotta go with it as said. IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

i've been over that BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank#Crediting see. now don't complain about it. those guys didn't got credited for the sciprt. it was based on a old film. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"I understand the system but i don’t trust things that are not right."

That's not a valid point. Me and Trivialist explained it to you. It's 2:1. IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

it's not vaild. the WGA got the system messed up. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@BMA-Nation2020: Might I suggest you read the opening of WGA screenwriting credit system: "The Writers Guild of America (WGA) credit system for motion pictures and television programs covers all works under the jurisdiction of the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) and the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW). The WGA, originally the Screen Writers Guild, has since 1941 been the final arbiter of who receives credit for writing a theatrical, television or new media motion picture written under its jurisdiction." They are an experienced and authoritative source for writing credits. Unless you can provide a reliable source showing they "messed it up," the credits shouldn't be changed. Trivialist (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

didn't you know who was gonnna write it? https://www.screendaily.com/news/gfm-rides-with-blazing-samurai/5079609.article this link tells Ed Stone and Nate Hopper did the script. not the others. only these two. It should have said inspired by the film blazing saddles. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

When the WGA awards credit, they look through all versions and judge who should get credit. When remakes start from the original basic script but still retain a sufficient amount of it, the original writers are credited because they still, technically, contributed to the script. If you don't like it, complain to the WGA instead of edit warring. Trivialist (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No they don’t. The disney remakes doesn’t have that style. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@BMA-Nation2020: Then that means the WGA found those scripts sufficiently different. Also, you're slightly mistaken, because Flubber includes the original screenwriter of The Absent-Minded Professor. The infobox credits should reflect the onscreen credits. Unless you have a reason for changing them that's better than "I don't like it" or "they're wrong", leave it alone. Trivialist (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. John Hughes wrote it based on the film itself. The modren ones are im worried about. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Besides i wrote a key detail on the Development section. Originally, Stone and Hopper wrote the full story, not the original writers. There was no explanation on why they were credit by WGA in the first place. WGA is fine for Rise of the Beasts but Paws of Fury, i don’t believe that. I believe in proof and truth. And there was a note i put down on the screenplay like Space Jam 2 and Eternals. So it’s unnesscairy to do that when we have a note having the WGA even if those writers weren’t involved. The Wikipedia is about finding the truth, some sources about each other and not from false information. I got the guidelines clearly by observing through. And lean from my mistakes to avoid an edit war. The full credits have to be on the note for the original two writers that did the full story. Not to what WGA thinks. Some would believe it, some won’t. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You believe in "proof and truth" but haven't provided any, and dismiss the WGA credits when you don't like them. You aren't the arbiter of truth. Trivialist (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)