Jump to content

Talk:Green Hornet

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

When Jack McCarthy Played The Green Hornet on the radio show

[edit]

I changed the dates of when Jack McCarthy played the part of the Green Hornet to read: 1947 to 1952. In 1952 the show went off the air. I base those dates on two things: (1) Jack McCarthy was my father and I was a kid and remember the dates during those years; (2) Jack McCarthy's good friend, Dick Osgood, wrote a book "WXYIE Wonderland" (1981) in which all the dates are spelled out. I added Osgood's book as a reference. Jtmc (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Tom McCarthy April 19, 2008.

I wish people would stop changing the dates to reflect erroneous dates of performance just because they appear in print in some book. I was there when my father performer on the radio and I thought that first hand evidence trumps misinformation from some reporter who gets it wrong years later.

Titles?

[edit]

I Was wondering if anyone had all the titles? In order of broadcast if possible. Also start And finish dates (years). Anyone interested the Action channel is showing GH episodes on Fri & Sat louie318@webtv.net

There's a link to Jerry Haendiges' radio logs at the bottom of the article. He's got as many as anybody, even though he thinks that a title he's seen on A script copy is more official than a title read on the air by the announcer/narrator, which by definition is not just on a script, but on the final version. Ted Watson 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City?

[edit]

Does anyone know from what city the Green Hornet operated? Is it ever revealed? Harvestdancer 19:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found a website that says it is Washington D.C., but I would like to be sure before I add that. Harvestdancer 16:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had always believed it was Chicago, but I can't find any evidence to support or refute that. Could it be a fictional city that is never explicitly named? [EDIT] On the official Phillip Jose Farmer/Wold Newton website [1], it is conjectured that the city is "possibly Detroit", but no evidence is given (probably taken from the fact that the Lone Ranger and Green Hornet radio series originated there). I've searched about a dozen websites and two books and none mention the name of any city, let alone a conjecture as to what it might have been. I did find that Warren Ellis places his Green Hornet/Shadow/Spider amalgam (Bret Leather, the Shadowy Spider) in Chicago, but like the Wold Newton "info", that's pretty much irrelevant. Canonblack 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [edit Canonblack 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
There is one radio episode called "Washington Story" where a case takes Reid/Hornet to Washington, D.C., which means he lived someplace else. Ted Watson 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD

[edit]

Are there any plans to release the show on DVD?

They are already on DVD.-Vmrgrsergr 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootlegs only, not official, licensed, or with "bells and whistles" of any kind. Ted Watson 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hall in lead, when?

[edit]

I would like to talk with whomever is responsible for posting that Robert Hall's starring run as the Green Hornet ended in 1951. All other sources state that he turned the part over to Jack McCarthy sometime in 1946, but there is indeed evidence working against this, namely that the voice doesn't seem to change until much later in the run, judging from the audio recordings that I have. This is why I have not changed it to match ALL the other reports. The situation, however, is even more complicated. Jerry Haendiges' radio logs--there's a link at the bottom of the article--indicates no episodes were aired between September 1950 and September 1952, eliminating anybody's run ending in 1951. Contrary to this, however, is the following: He restricts the show being sponsored by Orange Crush to the late '52 final run, while early 1949 episodes were, like the majority of the run, "sustained," i.e., unsponsored. This is a problem relevant to the claim of hiatus because one of my audio cassettes bears the eps "The Face in the Television" and "Pretender to the Throne," which Jerry dates February 1949 and December 1952, respectively, but they both carry Orange Crush ads and the same actor in the lead, one who is NOT heard in what '47 and '48 episodes I have (The earlier performer might well be Hall, staying on here longer than anyone else thinks, as you indicate he did if not for as long as you did, and this other fellow McCarthy; if he's not Bob in '47 and '48, then there is an unidentified fifth lead actor, either between Hall and McCarthy or after McCarthy, PERIOD!). Furthermore, as the title of the allegedly earlier of those two episodes might suggest, TV is depicted as a casual fact of life, which is much more plausible in late '52 (and that is also consistent with the aforementioned OC sponsorship) than early '49, as Jerry has it. When I asked him if it was possible OC sponsored reruns as well as that Fall '52 new run (I specifically suggested within that two-year gap, but it has since occurred to me that after production shut down for good in December '52 is also a distinct possibility, especially given Dell's one-shot comic book with a September 1953 cover date), Jerry declined to acknowledge the question, although he DID reply to other points (such as the two-year hiatus, which nobody else suggests and which he assured me actually happened) raised in my email to him. I wrote back again, on Feb. 6, repeating this inquiry (and mind you, ALL of this was as diplomatic and polite as possible), but as of this date, no response (I just went and looked over my last email to him and it seems to me that he might have read only the opening, inconsequential paragraph thanking him for his prompt response, etc., and not noticed the comments inserted within the previous text; I'll try again). Note also, taking at face value the 1949 date for "Face...," with its lead actor who is definitely NOT Hall, contradicts the statement that he left in 1951 as posted on the article, so we definitely have something to discuss. I have been unable to identify you from the history listings, so, please respond to this. My intent here is for us to try and figure out the truth behind what certainly seem to be contradictions in the various reports of this show's history. Ted Watson 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Ted Watson 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I took another look at the revision history listings, and did identify the editor responsible. He tells me his source was a book by John Dunning. Now if I can find a copy. A new listen to the 1952 episode, Pretenders to the Throne reveals that it contains a specific acknowledgement by announcer Fred Foy that its star is Jack McCarthy, BTW. Ted Watson (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I changed the dates of when Jack McCarthy played the part of the Green Hornet to read: 1947 to 1952. In 1952 the show went off the air. I base those dates on two things: (1) Jack McCarthy was my father and I was a kid and remember the dates during those years; (2) Jack McCarthy's good friend, Dick Osgood, wrote a book "WXYIE Wonderland" (1981) in which all the dates are spelled out. I added Osgood's book as a reference. Tom McCarthy April 19, 2008

Rutland "Green Hornet"

[edit]

In 1946, Vermont's Rutland railroad received 4 steam locomotives painted green and yellow. The were nicknamed Green Hornets after the comic book character. Information from Model Rairoader, April 1989, pp117-118. Author Bruce P. Curry in Paint shop column conducted by Andy Sperandeo. 72.197.240.96 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)scmstr631[reply]

Separate article for TV version?

[edit]

Despite the opening line, "The Green Hornet was an American radio program..." this article is (now) clearly about the character/property as a whole. The TV series was an unsuccessful (one season, in an era when mid-season cancellations were rare) spin-off and, despite the subsequent fame of co-star Bruce Lee, doesn't deserve its own article as much as the NOW comic book run. The section is as lengthy as it is simply due to the complex logistics of the production. I am a big fan of this character and have a video set of the series, but nevertheless vote against the proposal. Ted Watson 19:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have separate articles for each of the Hornet serials, I have begun to rethink my position on this proposal. It's becoming increasingly difficult to deny the validity of the TV version having its own article with minimal discussion here, but would this lead to the complex NOW Comics incarnation, itself a line--or range if you prefer--of comic books, also deserving its own article? Or even the original radio series itself (yes, this started out as an article on the radio show, but it isn't anymore)? Ted Watson (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... Why do we have articles on the two serials? I'm trying to think of how many potential readers would be interested in the (skimpy) information that we have on these two serials who are not interested in the Green Hornet. That audience doesn't seem very large, and yet without such an audience, there's no reason to have that serial information anywhere except the main article. To compare, if we ask who would be interested in an article on the TV version but not interested in the Green Hornet, the answer is "Bruce Lee fans", which it seems would be a rather significant audience. (By similar logic, BTW, I would dispute that the TV version "doesn't deserve its own article as much as the NOW comic book run" -- yes, the publication history of the comic books is complex, and so apparently is its handling of the continuity of the property, but who is it significant to other than Green Hornet fans?) -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, then--"The Green Hornet (TV series)" that redirects to this article? Ted Watson (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be any harm in such a redirect. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that redirect, fine-tuned to go directly to the TV section. Ted Watson (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Hornet parody

[edit]

Did Bill Cosby play the Green Hornet? 72.191.99.166 03:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosby did a syndicated radio parody of the Green Hornet, The Brown Hornet, who lived in a 5th-floor walkup, drove the White Beauty (a 1957 two-door Plymouth), and had an aide named Leroy. -- Davidkevin 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patton's Nickname

[edit]

I put {{Fact}} tags on this section because I've heard both versions of its origin, but have no written reference to either. Does anyone else have access to a written reference which can be cited? -- Davidkevin 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of photo: Why?

[edit]

Why was the photo of Al Hodge as Britt Reid (alias the Green Hornet) removed? Furthermore, when I tried to undo that, even though a note saying that this revision could be undone came up, the preview showed a box with code in it instead. If the photo is not available to be restored, why does the "can be undone" note show? (I am very surprised to see that I forgot to sign this. Very sorry. Ted Watson 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Do not merge or rename

[edit]

The Green Hornet is a charecter featured in comics books and TV show so it cannot be renamed.-Vmrgrsergr 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herobox?

[edit]

Should we get a herobox in here for the Green Hornet? He's been featured in comics and probably deserves one. Also could someone could find a reasonable picture that's free to use?Komodo 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book Black Beauty

[edit]

The Pontiac Banshee seems to have been the model not the Corvette Indy Compare this cover image of the car: http://www.comicvine.com/comic/green-hornet-the/4308/33898/&i=45127 to these images Pontiac Banshee: http://members.tripod.com/~Proformula/banshee.html Corvette Indy: http://www.supercars.net/Pics?v=y&s=c&id=348&p=1986_Chevrolet_CorvetteIndyConcept1.jpg 9toes 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, and thank you for waking me up to that incorrect reference. I did not even have to check your images, but simply went through my comic collection until I found the issue where the editor said as much in the letter column. I have now corrected the article, even including a citation to that statement. Again, thank you. Ted Watson 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guns?

[edit]

It's my understanding that in some incarnations of the character, he uses two specialized guns -- one which shoots knock-out gas, one which delivers an electric shock. Which incarnations introduced these weapons, and which later incarnations used them? -- 209.6.177.176 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gas gun goes back to the early radio days, possibly from the outset, but I'm not certain, as little of the first couple of years survives to be heard. The "electric shock" weapon, frequently compared to today's Taser guns controversially used by police, was created for the modern Hornet in the NOW Comics of 1989-1995. It was, however, something of a variation on the telescoping, sonic weapon of the 1960s television series, and shared its name, "The Hornet Sting." Ted Watson 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News on Rogen film version

[edit]

According to http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/11/29/seth-rogen-confirms-hes-writing-the-green-hornet/ Seth Rogen may be not just writing but starring in the film version. The article also has some hints about the screenplay, including that there is a "more comedic" and "less comedic" version. -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... pictures?

[edit]

How can an article like this go without pictures? I'll have to get some up ASAP. Ichormosquito (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Leo Records GH album

[edit]

I deleted the passage about the Leo Records TV tie-in dramatic record for several reasons. The only "Leo Records" whose existence I could document--including the linked-in Wiki article--was a UK label specializing in jazz music and founded in 1979, too late for a tie-in to a TV series that ran 1966-67. Most of the cast that had articles were British political figures, also highly unlikely. And searches of "amazon.com" and the internet as a whole failed to turn up a mention of any such album--a soundtrack (music) album, yes, but no original audio adventures (and those two story titles don't suggest any TV episodes, which I would have expected, as well). I therefore find the entire suggestion too implausible to leave an uncited passage to that effect in place. Sorry, friend, as I respect a good deal of work you have done here. Ted Watson (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: revert of Johnny Dollar "called" versus "calling himself"

[edit]

In the Comics section, I reverted "called Johnny Dollar" back to my "calling himself Johnny Dollar." This is a code name, like "The Riddler" of Batman fame, rather than a seemingly normal identity that is phony and assumed for legal purposes, such as Dollar's own Jonathan Dunhill. I feel that this needs to be made clearer than "called Johnny Dollar" does. Your feelings? BTW, you've generally been doing very good work on this article and I strongly recommend you register here. Ted Watson (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Beauty reverts

[edit]

I am reverting the last two edits toi the Black Beauty passage of the Television subsection:

  1. The source cited there says the car used was a "Chrysler Crown Imperial."
  2. Having examined Katoman.com, I don't find that site particularly convincing or credible as an authority, and couldn't find the statement that the lights actually could be flipped. Furthermore, there is at least one scene in the series where the lights really should be in normal mode but are not, compelling evidence that the transition was not easy accomplished. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV series last date

[edit]

Someone just changed the last date of the TV series from March 17 to March 24, 1967. Technically, neither of these are correct, as a few reruns were aired before ABC pulled the show off their schedule. Furthermore, the original airdate of the episode "The Hornet and the Firefly" is highly disputed. Some sources/episode guides skip December 30, 1966 and list "Firefly" on March 24, but others put it on December 30. Most likely, similar to the first episode of the Saturday morning cartoon version of Star Trek, it did air in December but was bumped on the West Coast only due (in "Firefly"'s case) to a breaking news story by the time the three-hour delay for regular programming came up (live sports coverage got in the way of the Trek debut out West). I am hoping to someday revisit the Dallas (TX) Public Library and their collection of TV Guide back issues and see if they label "Firefly"'s March 24 telecast a rerun (BTW, they list what everybody says is the following week's episode, "Seek, Stalk and Destroy" (!) for December 30, but I didn't think to check March 24 on that occasion; I'm embarrassed! One other thing: every source that puts "...Firefly" on March 24 instead of December 30 also lists "Ace in the Hole" and "Bad Bet on a 459 Silent" in reverse order; alignment on these two disputes seems to be 100%). So I'm reverting this back to the 17th, for now at least. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Could somebody update the film section? There seems to be some duplication with the feature films and recent developments sections and there hasn't been any details about the Ryan Reynolds casting. I may be able to add a free image of Seth Rogen at Comic-Con promoting the upcoming film, so it would be great if there was an updated section for the image to go with. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy duplication has occurred to me too. However, I'd prefer someone with a better idea of Wiki policy on which section is the more appropriate make the changes. Until then, I'll put whatever updates I find in both. However, what "Ryan Reynolds casting"? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source/reference error

[edit]

The article has two instances for the same reference, but the year is different. Can someone who knows please verify the correct year? Murray, Will, "Where Hornets Swarm," Comics Scene #9, (October) 1989 or 1990? --SidP (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for pointing it out. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split into several articles

[edit]

This article should be split into multiple articles. There are many other "The Green Hornet" universe articles, so this should be a The Green Hornet fictional universe article.

There's already a character article Kato (The Green Hornet), so a character article for Britt Reid/Green Hornet should be supportable.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
voice your opinion on the suggested action here, with a rationale to support your opinion

Discussion

[edit]
voice other comments on the suggested action here

I don't think retitling the remainder of this article with the parenthetical qualifier "character" is at all necessary, but I have come to feel, as I put forth in an earlier thread to that point, that maybe a separate article for the TV show is not a bad idea. Another for the radio series is dubious, however, as it is the medium in which "he" was born and where he had the longest run, and would therefore have to be heavily discussed in a character article. One for the comic books, on the other hand, is viable, as we already have Conan (comics) and Solomon Kane (comics), to name two that I am aware of just off the top of my head. Perhaps a more detailed discussion of the NOW version's multi-generational chronology would be appropriate in a Green Hornet (comics) article (as you can see, the title is already set up as a redirect to the section of this article). --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the charcter should be separate from the franchise, since it's hard to discuss the character in a franchise setting. So if the character were to remain at the prime name, then all the franchise stuff should be split off to say The Green Hornet (franchise). 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the Green Hornet should have a television section since it is a separate entity from the character and the article is bloated as it is. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a separate article and even provided sources.The Green Hornet (TV Series) Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a mass of third person information to justify a separate article for the green hornet as a character or the radio show then I see no reason for a split. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Big specifics

[edit]

This new specific information on recurring villains Mr. X, Mr. Big and Oliver Perry is quite welcome, but I do have one problem. Where do the airdates come from? With the airdates given for Mr. Big, Jerry Haendiges' Vintage Radio Logs (see the external link to his site) doesn't have any titles, but he does have a switch from the NBC Blue Network to Mutual between what are claimed to be the last two episodes in that story arc. It's difficult to challenge him on such things, yet this doesn't make much sense, does it? Can IP 71.167.83.154 give his/her source(s) for these airdates? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus to move. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Hornet → Green Hornet (comics) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other superhero (for example, the Green Lantern), "the" is not an actual part of his name. The suffix "(comics)" is standard for comic book characters (for example, Whiplash (comics)). — the Man in Question (in question) 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with both these suggestions. According to every reference provided in the article for radio, television and film appearances, and the official website of the copyright holder found at [2], it's "The" Green Hornet. (I would have no objection to a redirect from Green Hornet to the current page, which might be useful. There's a thorough disambiguation at Green Hornet already.) And linking this character entirely to comic books ignores the origin of the character in radio, and his long and varied career on radio, television and films. Also, I believe it's standard practice where a fictional character is split across multiple media platforms to maintain an unattributed central archive of information and then to split out sub-pages for individual media -- as has happened here with The Green Hornet (TV series). Accounting4Taste:talk 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wrong to add the qualifier "(comics)" because, as Accounting4Taste says, that is not the medium of origin, and at more than one thousand episodes (according to Jerry Haendiges's logs connected in the article's External links section), the radio series also remains the most used medium for the property. Others have been no more than licensed tie in products. As for "The," there has been debate, at Talk:Spectre (comics) for example, about it being used this way, and I cannot see any validity to the position that it is a good idea: In almost every instance of a character with such a name (The Shadow has remained immune to this, because "The" is "capitalized in running text," at least in the pulp novels, and the guidelines explicitly allow its use in an article title in that situation, as I quoted), we have to have a redirect because that is how most anybody would put it in the search engine. In short, I deny that the guidelines have any right to be illogically arbitrary, which this one is. Or can someone cite a good reason for it? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The" is used in his name, yes, but because it is not capitalized it is not a part of his title. If the suffix "(comics)" is somehow not appropriate, that's fine. But the inclusion of "The" is patently wrong. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Patently wrong"? I'll now ask the question I implied before: Why? What is a reason justifying the existence of this rule? I simply cannot conceive one, and without one the rule does not deserve to exist. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THE: "If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name." In a sentence, the character is not The Green Hornet, he is the Green Hornet. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that policy seems useful and appropriate, thanks for bringing it to my attention. It does admit exceptions, but I'm not sure if this would qualify as one or not. My brief research revealed that in most media, the character is almost always referred to in title pages, etc., as "The Green Hornet"; it seems as though only in comic books does he lose the "The". (It was almost always written in all caps, regrettably.) Is this a distinction too fine to draw? I'm going to look into this a little further. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proper grammatical use of a mid-sentence capitalized "the" is almost exclusively limited to titles of works (i.e., titles in italics or quotes). The capitalization of The Green Hornet mid sentence is a grammatical error. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've e-mailed the author of a recent definitive work on the topic and asked him to comment on the usage in the source materials; original radio scripts and contemporaneous programme logs. My research has revealed multiple instances of both usages. What seems to be a direct cognate of this situation at The Lone Ranger -- which fictional character is a blood relation of Britt Reid -- seems to me also to be of interest. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lone Ranger article has "the" in the name because it is a reference to the body of work, not the character. Comic books about the Green Hornet are appropriately referred to as The Green Hornet comics. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting us back on topic. The capitalization question was brought up only as the explanation for "The Shadow" not being "Shadow (something)" in that Wikipedia article's title, contrary to Spectre (comics), Creeper (comics) and many others. Our point is indeed whether or not "The" should be in the article's title, and I do not see the lack of its capitalization in running text as any kind of justification for leaving it off. Rules just do not have the right to be arbitrary, especially to the point of contradicting common sense. An article's title is not running text, and in such a context the direct article "The" is invariably (except in Wikipedia) present, if after a comma (i.e., "Green Hornet, The"). The radio show, the serials, the comic books (despite the Grand Comics Database's listings of some series, you can see "The" in the logo on every cover scan they have, which is all but new Dynamite issues as yet unavailable) and the TV series the title is "The Green Hornet." --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The radio show, the serials, the comic books […] and the TV series the title is 'The Green Hornet.'" Exactly. Titles of works, italicized, use "The". It is a widely accepted precedent of English that uncapitalized "the" is not part of a name. A perfect Wikipedia example is Joker (comics) instead of The Joker. It's exactly the same as Nile instead of The Nile, Sahara instead of The Sahara, United States instead of The United States, Supreme Court of the United States instead of The Supreme Court of the United States, Black Spot (Treasure Island) instead of The Black Spot, etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a widely accepted precedent of English that uncapitalized "the" is not part of a name. A perfect Wikipedia example is Joker (comics) instead of The Joker."
Not when we are talking about a character's super-hero (or super-villain) type name, it isn't. Joker is not a perfect example to support your position, but in fact is no more than a typical example of how it this is currently being done here, and would be moved if the outcome of this very debate is that your position loses. Your other examples (and two of those articles really should be titled "Nile River" and "Sahara Desert", as those are the actual full titles of those geographic forms, but that's a whole 'nother debate) are completely different types of entities from these characters, and it is absurd to apply the same rule to both. The only reason no one can find instances of anyone calling the excluded pulp & radio hero "Shadow" is because no one addresses him to his face by any form of that name; his own agents call him "Master", others by his real name or an alias (to Margo Lane, for example, he is Lamont [Cranston], even though she knows the truth about him). And that's a major point: The only times that "The" is not attached to these characters' names is when they are being spoken to. Nobody says, "Now look here, the Green Hornet..." because that sounds stupid (and for that reason only), but it is always "Hey, look, it's the Green Hornet!" and this also applies to the Lone Ranger, the Spectre, the Creeper, the Joker, and God knows how many others; the lack of capitalization of "the" in running text does not overrule the fact that it is always present (except in dialogue spoken to the character) by any practical argument, only in arbitrary assertion. It would apply to The Shadow as well if anybody ever addressed him by that name in print (I wonder if it has happened in one or another comic book version). Relevant to this point, your example in your very first post here, Green Lantern, seems a choice calculated to mislead, as "the" has been rarely (I do not say "never") used in talking about him ("Green Lantern should be here soon" rather than "The Green Lantern should..." is standard usage for him/them). None of what has been said genuinely justifies titling any of these articles "Core Name (qualifier)" instead of "The Core Name" (and a qualifier if needed anyway). And note the qualifiers we would not have the other way, such as your own cited/linked The Joker; currently that's a straight redirect to the Batman villain's article, not directly to a DAB page or something. Nor has anything said to justify the exceptions that have been granted as exceptions been truly meaningful, either. Justification of this arbitrary (at least in reference to this sort of character name) and counter-to-common-sense rule is what I call for, and I say it is mandatory.
(If all that boldface puts you off, sorry. I tried using italics for emphasis, but in Preview mode I saw that they make the words lighter than the rest, which is de-emphasis. See "has" in parenthetical aside about Shadow comic books.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Joker (comics)" would not be changed to "The Joker", because it conforms with WP:THE. The examples I gave follow the same rule (and are therefore valid examples) because grammar is economical. (The only exception I can think of is the capitalization of pronouns in reference to God.) Also, though not on topic, the correct names of "Nile" and "Sahara" are "Nile" and "Sahara". The addition of the suffixes such as "River" and "Desert" is employed by governments, etc., for the purposes of organization, but has no substantive meaning. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you cease the evasions and deal with what I have actually said, that I have challenged the validity of the rule? This means that your pointing out that Joker (comics) conforms to the rule is no refutation of what I said about it at all, which was that your describing it as "a perfect example" working against my position was incorrect, that it merely was a typical example of what I'm saying is incorrect per common sense, and it would indeed be reverted if my position prevails in this dispute. I have no idea what you mean by "grammar is economical" because this rule is wasteful, often necessitating otherwise unneeded qualifiers, as in The Joker versus Joker (comics), both of which go to the exact same page, as previously noted. This selective misrepresentation constitutes failing to discuss in good faith, and it won't convince any intelligent and fair-minded editor that you are right and I am wrong, but strongly suggests that you are wrong since you can't come up with anything valid to say in defense of your position. So I strongly advise you to drop it. To show you how honest and fair *I* am, I admit to a factual error: The 1940s Harvey Comics run of comic books starring the Green Hornet (#s 6–47) has "The" in the cover logo only once (The New Green Hornet Fights Crime, #41, September 1948; why "New" I have no idea). Since the title was never less than Green Hornet Comics, I don't see it as invalidating my point.
I have previously stated that no rule of writing has the right to be arbitrary and in opposition to the common sense of the situation at hand, which is exactly what we have here. From this, we have the right to say here that it is wrong, and perhaps plant a seed that would lead to this common sense finding its way into writing guides across the English writing world. As the discussion started here, I feel that it would be best to reach the sensible consensus here and take that to the relevant WP MoS page. Now deal with what is actually in my posts! --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to evade anything. I guess I just don't see how you're not familiar with the rule that "the" is only included in works titles or a few governmentally sanctioned placenames. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't mean to evade anything." Like hell you don't, because you've done it again. You can't write as clear and "mechanically" accurate as you do and be too retarded to understand that I am saying that the rule is WRONG and needs to be changed, to add these kind of character names to the exception you just indicated. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Green Hornet. Whiplash was a bad example; it is an ambiguious term. The less ambiguous heroes like Superman don't contain the word comics in their title Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely no argument to remove "The" which is the issue here. If it were removed, some qualifier would be absolutely necessary. However, I point to my unaddressed arguments above to keep it. Furthermore, I even deny that there is any general rule about this, only the Wikipedia guidelines which are certainly open to dispute. I have never encountered any encyclopedia or other analogous information source which formats article titles with parenthetical qualifiers, and virtually all included the article "The" in cases such as these characters, even if after a comma (e.g., "Green Hornet, The"), which I've mentioned before. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) The use of parenthetical qualifiers is not debatable on Wikipedia. The encyclopedias which do not use them use superscript numbers instead. 2) Other encyclopedias to do not use "the" except where it is capitalized as part of a proper name, such as the title of a work. This is not up for debate, as it is also Wikipedia policy. The Encyclopedia Britannica (which does use parenthetical qualifiers) has "The Green Hornet (television series)" because it is in reference to the series, not the character, as evidenced by the parenthetical qualifier "(television series)". — the Man in Question (in question) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. WP:THE is not a policy, it's a "guideline", and as the box at the very top states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." One of the authors of The Green Hornet: A History of Radio, Motion Pictures, Comics, and Television has told me in a personal communication that the creator, Fran Striker, acknowledged the capitalization of the "T" in 1939 in writing, "as that is his name in full". Personal communications are, of course, not useful here; I've ordered a copy of the book and hope to bring a relevant citation to this discussion. In the meantime, perhaps a few deep breaths and a cup of tea would be in order. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Policy vs. guidelines is a valid distinction. I'm sorry. The author's use of "the", however, is not. "The" cannot properly be capitalized in a personal name in the English language, so if the author capitalized "the", he was making a grammatical error. However, I am sick of this discussion, so I wash my hands of it. Do with this page what you will. — the Man in Question (in question)

Glad to hear it, you unreasonable jerk. The English language is fluid, evolving, so such rules are indeed open to debate, especially in the light of common sense. And I stand by my statement that I have never encountered denying "The" on article titles and the like for such character names anywhere else. Furthermore, I have no idea what relevancy "superscript numbers" has to this discussion. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

I received my copy of The Green Hornet: A History of Radio, Motion Pictures, Comics, and Television today. It's 800 pages (!), so I haven't had time to give it the attention it deserves, but a random sampling tells me that the authors consistently capitalize the word "The" when the name "The Green Hornet" appears in the middle of a sentence. From the Introduction, page ix: "Like The Lone Ranger, The Green Hornet never killed or permanently injured anybody." I have yet to find the specific material of which I was informed by the author; give me a few weeks. (800 pages!!) Accounting4Taste:talk 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Hornet appearing in other movies

[edit]

In the 2010 movie Jing mo fung wan: Chen Zhen, a martial arts movie with Donnie Yen, and a sequel to Fist of Fury with bruce Lee. In Jing mo fu wan: Chen Zhen, the main character dresses up in a Green Hornet suit (SEE EDIT NOTE), in order to gain an undercover identity to fight the Japanese. He gains the suit from a costume shop right beside a cinema with a poster of a (fictional?) movie called Masked Warrior. His alter ego is occasionally referred to as "The Green Hornet" in the movie by people reading newspapers etc. This is historically incorrect, though, since the movie of Jing mo fung wan: Chen Zhen is taking place before the release of the first The Green Hornet movie.

This is obviously a reference to Bruce Lee's participation in the role of Kato in the movies of The Green Hornet from 1967-1974, since Bruce Lee was the creator of the character Chen Zhen, who Donnie Yen now is inheriting in the movie.

I would be glad to see any of this noted in the wiki page.

EDIT NOTE: I found out that it's in fact not the suit of The Green Hornet, but his sidekick, Kato.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1456661/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.47.91 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is The Legend of the Fist listed under Green Hornet in Other Films? Chen Zhen had nothing to do with The Green Hornet; even though he does dress like Kato, this section is only for The Green Hornet cannon in other media (cartoon, film, theater, television, etc.), not every last minuscule, random mention of the name of, or imitation of, a character in irrelevant media sources.98.246.50.225 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Series cancellation

[edit]

I removed the following entry: "People interested in the series[who?] became convinced that it only lasted one season because the times were considered too tense for straight handling of comic characters."

First, that it wildly unsupported. Who are these "people interested in the series"? Fans? Scholars? How d'd they "become convinced?" Focus groups? Brain washing? Did Van Williams take away their pain? Was it even more than one person? Also, the sentence is badly written: "the times were considered too tense" is an awkward way of speaking about the social climate of the era. Ssosmcin (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move to Green Hornet - Because this article is about the character and not the franchise, the definite article qualifies the title rather than being part of it. Wikipedia's naming conventions with respect to definite and indefinite articles at the beginning of the name require qualifying definite articles to be removed. Neelix (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Hornet → Green Hornet – Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Green Hornet re: renaming it "Green Hornet (disambiguation)". Also, "Seems to serve its purpose well enough" seems a bit vague. Not sure how "Green Hornet (disambiguation)" would serve purpose any less, while allowing us to follow policy here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Bob247 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No more so than The Joker or The Spirit or The Hulk or.... The Phantom refers to the proper-noun title of the comic strip, not the character. The Shadow refers to the franchise, not the character. It's an MOS vio at The Lone Ranger. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were about the general "franchise" or was about the show I could see keeping "The". It isn't, it's about the characters. WP:THE in the "General usage" is relatively clear:
"When a proper name is almost always used with capitalized "The", especially if it is included by unofficial sources, we should include it."
"...almost always..." would bean that when the character is mentions, even in running text it would be as "The Green Hornet". Common usage though in this case is for "The" to only be used at the start of sentences in regards to the character. Similar guidelines to look at are WP:DEFINITE and since it's one of the Projects looking over this article, WP:NCC/THE.
The only reason I'm qualifying my support is WP:COMMONNAME (WP:NM is not relevant here since it relates to music) would go a long way in supporting the current title. The character is routinely referred to as "the Green Hornet" implying the "the" should be included. Which leaves use with two guidelines (or is it two sections of the same guideline...) pointing in opposite directions for this article. Either way it is going to be an exception to one of them. In that light I am more inclined to support WP:THE in this instance.
- J Greb (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Lone Ranger connection?

[edit]

Should there be a mention of Reid's backstory as the Lone Ranger's great nephew or whatever it was? Is there any reliable material that mentions it or no? 67.186.120.41 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air times

[edit]

Anybody have info to include any air times for the radio and TV shows, for first episodes at least if they moved around too much to document? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.201 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green Hornet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover with Dick Tracy

[edit]

I don't know if it could be mentionned, there's a crossover of the Green Hornet comic strip with Dick Tracy had beginned recently. http://dicktracy.info/2018-dick-tracy-green-hornet-crossover/ http://www.gocomics.com/dicktracy/2018/04/10 --Sd-100 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Hornet&oldid=1197496157"