Talk:The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film)

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

Setting[edit]

Is it appropriate to add that reference is made to the events of Van Helsing, and that the character Mr Hyde features in both movies, suggesting they are set in the same universe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Bean (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyde is also a giant in Van Helsing, voiced (IIRC) by Billy Connelly, so he has a strong Scottish accent, and killed right at the beginning of the movie. Apart from that, both movies were stinkers. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I had once written (in the now defunct Epinions) that there had been too many remakes of Jekyll & Hyde (the latest was with Tony Todd, who was frightening even when he was Jekyll) and the story ought to left alone for a generation or so. But the thought occurs to me that a remake that brings in Dorian Gray to discuss with Dr. Jekyll the nature of a life entirely without sinful urges balanced by another life given entirely to sinful urges might be intriguing. 08:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Anachronisms[edit]

Pattern 1916 Stahlhelm on the pseudo-Germans, quotation marks in the newspaper headlines (not usually in larger font cases of the era). 24.94.44.253 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom Sawyer character is protrayed as a fairly young man (thirtyish?), yet Twain's character would have to have been middle-aged or more in 1898. "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" in which the title character is a pre-teen, is set "thirty or forty years" prior to the time it was written in the 1870s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Many anachronisms. As this takes place circa 1901, automobiles already existed, so the characters should not be so completely astonished with the car that Nemo "invented" (except that he has included some blandishments that didn't exist until the 1920s or 1930s, such as grillwork, chrome ornamentation, hubcaps, white sidewalls, etc.). Neither should they be astonished at armored tanks with belts for traction. American Secret Service Agent Sawyer (we are NOT told his first name) cannot be Tom Sawyer, as that person was about ten or twelve on the brink of the Civil War some 35 years previous. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire film falls under suspension of belief with regard to the mixing of characters, technology and timescales. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's not that bad really. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus[edit]

Anyone else notice the conning tower of the Nautilus is in the shape of a lingam/yoni statue? 24.94.44.253 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hyde's size[edit]

In the description here Hyde is described as such: "also in the novel Mr. Hyde is a short man with murderous instincts and not a giant beast like in the film". However, it is mentioned in the novel and in the second comic book series that Jekyll was withering from the lack of his sins while Hyde had grown due to his indulging in them. The hulking Hyde is appropriate. It is the lack of civility when not on a rampage that is in error in the film. 68.48.174.136 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, the Hyde characters morality and personality are greatly toned down. He can have conversations with the league members, and is not, as it appears, driven with a desire to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¶ As with most (or all) of the other literary characters, Jekyll/Hyde have been tampered with. The original Jekyll and Hyde novella made it clear that the evil Hyde was a bit smaller than the good Jekyll, and that Hyde was entirely evil and unlikeable. (The equally wretched movie Van Helsing also made Hyde a giant.) Sussmanbern (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modern representation of Hyde is in general large to the point of enormous. This is very likely an effect of The Incredible Hulk. 31.209.55.158 (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition the the criticism list[edit]

Sorry I added this without any proper referencing...if anyone has anything to add, I'll be a very happy man. Iwan Berry 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Problems[edit]

The descriptions of characters do not make sense. The following is taken from the Allan Quartermain section: "The character matches with his original storyline as we are informed that he had two wives and a son. Since he doesn't die in any of the books we are led to believe that this adventure takes place after all the others."

There is also a serious fault on Harker's profile. She was never made a vampire in the books, and that is a fact that can not be ignored. She was in the process, which made it possible for the rest of the gang to defeat Dracula, but the whole point of doing so was to save her from fully transforming into a vampire. Actually, I think I'll have to edit that

This is badly structured and assumes a knowledge of the film, and the structure/timeline of the original comic. Therefore, it is not properly encyclopaedic.

I will attempt to re-write these so they make sense to a first time reader (i.e.. me), after doing a bit of research into the differences between the film and comic. fatbarry2000 22:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how could a character from an 1897 novel (The Invisible Man), still be under copyright? The only copyright exception I know of this nature is Peter Pan, which J.M. Barrie willed to a children's hospital for the perpetuity of the hospitals' existence. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright extends for 70 years after the death of the author in many countries and Wells lived a long timeColScott 02:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
H.G. Wells is English and Enlgish copy right law last 70 years after the author die as said above, as H.G. Wells died on the 13th of August 1946 the copyright ends on the 13th of August 2016 which means we have to wait till then for the use of the original invisible man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.125.49 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many character problems, Dorian Gray is by no stretch of the imagination an adventurer or a swashbuckler, had no fighting skills in the novel, was not endangered by the sight of his portrait (which most assuredly was not hanging on his wall), etc. Mina Harker was not a vampire. The Captain Nemo we see here is not the Polish captain from 20000 Leagues but the Indian captain from Mysterious Island. The American Sawyer cannot be Tom Sawyer (but the original hero of the ViewMaster reels was Sam Sawyer, so maybe ....) Sussmanbern (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Venice Problem[edit]

Having added a list of perfectly rational criticisms of the Venice scene, I was surprised to discover that someone had written that the LXG is set in an alternate Universe, and "Venice in that universe is not our Venice.". That's perfectly reasonable of course, but makes for poor storytelling and detracts from the reliability of an already plot-hole filled film. If it has St Marks's Basilica, maskerade balls and gondolas on the canals - not to mention the word "Venice" appearing on screen when the scene begins - it probably is "our Venice". The scene is a perfect example of how the studio had very little knowledge concerning what they were handling, and wanted to make an action flick rather than something intelligent and compelling. 84.65.36.118 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, perhaps they DID want to make an action flick rather than something intelligent and compelling? It is based on a comic after all (and one by a much-overrated writer at that). Wiki is for facts anyway, not what YOU thought about ONE scene. It's as bad as the Slavs and the other lot trying to shit up the internet with their engrish debates that nobody gives the slightest shit about.86.164.113.83 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Ending?[edit]

I along with several friends remember the ending scene having Quartermain's hand come up through the grave and grabbing the rifles, but I can't find any evidence supporting this. Can anyone help? Dodrian 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They talk about that on the DVD commentary.

Is it in the deleted scene section. I think I might have seen that when it was in theaters. But I do remember seeing that. Maybe they cut it for the DVD's release?

Quatermain's name is misspelled ("Quartermain") on his headstone. That's a common enough error (made several times on this page alone), but maybe it was deliberate, a suggestion that all wasn't as it seemed. WHPratt (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?[edit]

I found no evidence supporting the claim made in the "The Ending" section that there is going to be a sequel. Therefore, I have deleted it.--Farquaadhnchmn 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of a reboot? Sean Connery retired from acting, so a sequel seems unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.221.144 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are a lot of fair-use images on this page[edit]

n/t Salad Days 03:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In response to that warning[edit]

I just stumbled upon this page and saw that warning, but i'm surprised nobody is talking about it. As far as I can tell, the plot description is WAAAAAAAY too long (longer than the plot description for 'The Godfather') and convoluted, and nothing on the page describes the central concept for the movie. I think the opening paragraph should have an extra sentence, something like "It is an adventure film set late in the 19th century, featuring an assortment of literary characters appropriate to the period." Then should come a list of characters, because that's important to the understanding. Then a short summary of the plot.

Just my two cents.ThatGuamGuy 22:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)sean[reply]

I agree, some serious trimming needs to be done. I'm willing to help. DurinsBane87 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F/Phantom[edit]

which is it phantom or fantom

its phantom. why someones decided it's spelled fantom I have no idea... Twitchmoss 16:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the credits it's spelled "Fantom". Gr8white (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also reads "Fantom" in the subtitles. It's Fantom. I have a question. Why is it that all of the main cat is listed with one name "Quartermain" "Mina" "Sawyer" "Nemo" "Skinner" and "Dorian", but Jekyll/Hyde is listed as "Doctor Henry Jekyll/Mr. Edward Hyde"? It seems too long considering how they name the characters in the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be "Fantômas", hence the spelling (the copyright status of the character is unclear in Europe, so the character is not explicitly named.) Billtanin (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Evidently this masked villain, supposedly (but not really) disfigured, is called the Phantom (or something that sounds like it) simply so Sean Connery can say "How operatic!" and this links this figure with yet another pulp character, the Phantom of the Opera. Sussmanbern (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office[edit]

Film is listed as one of the top 25 for that year worldwide yet monkey keeps reverting

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/index.cgi?top=50&start=2003&finish=2003&order=worldwide&keyword=&links=allposters.com&popups=yes

Fair use rationale for Image:Lxg214S.jpg[edit]

Image:Lxg214S.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.jpg[edit]

Image:The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This article seems to attract vandalism. Poking around because of some odd transitions I found there were quite a few wholesale deletions of sentences and sections, only some of which were caught by bots. Somebody more familiar with this article and/or the material should go back a ways and see what has been chopped out. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Moore in sequel[edit]

There is a bit about Roger Moore playing a character in the sequel, but the two sources give for this claim are not very good, one doesn't even contain the word "roger" and the other mentions sources for the claim, but doesn't provide them. The main reason I doubt the claim is that Roger Moore would have been almost 80 years old by the time they started making the planned sequel and wouldn't be very well suited to play James Bond again. JayKeaton (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that they were doing a sequel, although it'd certainly be a treat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.244.120 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatley people persist in the misguided notion that the comic was better, when it wasn't (it had so many references to cram in they forgot to include a storyline until the last chapter!), so the sequel will never be made. 86.164.113.83 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the graphic novels and the film[edit]

There really needs to be a section in the article describing the problems with copyrights and whatnot, to explain what was basically a complete rewrite of the novels, which bear absolutely no resemblance to the film. It begs the question, "why make the film at all, if it requires butchering the original material that was so good it made people want a movie version?"

In fact, if it was so hard for Fox, how did Moore get around all of the same issues in order to write his graphic novels? 198.213.171.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it was a matter of being "hard" for Fox. I believe Fox didn't want to rack up huge legal costs and such to fight the lawsuit, and so settled. Everyone always tries as hard as they can to avoid going through a trial phase. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article today is the first I've ever heard about the lawsuit by Cohen and Poll. If, as the anonymous IP above says, that the film's resemblance to its credited source material was minimal at best, why did Moore think he needed to exonerate himself? The article does not indicate that he was named along with Fox in the suit beyond the implication of that statement (if he was a defendant, he could refuse to settle, I would think). And I read at the time of the film's release about one difference. It was pointed out that where the graphic novel had H. G. Wells' actual Invisible Man Griffin, the film had some thief who had gotten his hands on the formula. Why single this out (and strongly imply that it was not typical) if deviations from Moore's original work were in fact wholesale? Are they indeed so great that a section in the article listing them (as I came here to suggest) would be unwieldy or worse? --Tbrittreid (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original characters?[edit]

Are Sanderson Reed and Karl and/or Eva Draper from Victorian literature, or were they invented? Daibhid C (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ishmael from Moby Dick?[edit]

Is Nemo's first mate, Ishmael, the character from Moby-Dick? If not then the article contains an inappropriate link. HairyWombat (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is yes. Just as Captain Nemo is from Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and the other characters are mixed up and inspired by various literature. -- Horkana (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Captain Nemo is not from 20000 Leagues (that Nemo was Polish), but from Mysterious Island, and if Ishmael is from Moby Dick then he should be about 80 when this is all taking place - and I would think unwilling to go near the ocean again. Sussmanbern (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


he clearly says "call me ishmael" when he is introduced to the other characters. the movie is full of such "knowing" references to other pop culture phenomena, such as quatermain's "how operatic!" upon hearing about the phantom/fantom character, at once a reference to "phantom of the opera" & a bond-ism. a device to keep the viewer's attention when the lack of co-stars & an engaging plot fail to do this, imho.

duncanrmi (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home Media[edit]

Are we to assume that the figures for the returns on the home media are global? If they are for a specific region (my guess would be the U.S.), it should say so, to maintain encylopædic rigour, and remove national bias. Jock123 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figures from The Numbers would seem to be from the United States but it is not made clear. WP:WORLDVIEW strikes again but it is better to have the figures such as they are than to delete them. Other sources might help clarify, DVD review websites tend to have better details. -- Horkana (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert[edit]

I really think we should add a spoiler alert near the end of the plot summary. I read the entire plot summary before I watched the movie, and it partially spoiled the ending for me. I really don't want this to happen to anyone else. Woknam66 (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings aren't used anymore - see wp:spoiler. It is assumed that anybody reading a section entitled "plot" will be aware that this will reveal the story, including the ending and any dramatic twists or turns that may be made during the film. In fact, one of the core purposes of a plot section is to intentionally highlight any revelations that are made during the film - which by default includes what you term "spoilers".
Can I ask why were you reading the plot summary if you didn't want to know what was going to happen? a_man_alone (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I didn't know that it was Wikipedia policy to never include spoiler alerts, so I won't add it back in (although I wish the guy who had deleted it had said that it was Wikipedia policy instead of not giving any reason). I read the plot summary before I watched the movie because I heard that it was a good movie, but I wanted to make sure that it at least had a good plot before I dropped $15 on it. Woknam66 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I personally never read plot summaries until after I've seen a film/read a book for that very reason, but I do find it useful to go through the summary afterwards, as the summary may contain factoids that I had missed, or even more pertinant - I may have noticed something that has been missed out. Everybody can contribute - so do so! a_man_alone (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fleming[edit]

Requesting outside input. The character M (an obivous James Bond nod, though certian editors refuse to believe) is James Bond's boss. The character also played a part in the comic series, thus solidifying Flemings invovement. But each time he is added to the pool of authors whose characters were used, he is immediately removed. I believe he should be there, because this is an obvious fact. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:35 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The guys who keep removing him are just arguing for the sake of arguing. They know full well that "M" in the movie is the character that Ian Fleming invented, they just need to grow up. Woknam66 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to listen to a cogent argument about adding Ian Fleming, but I'm not willing to listen to edit summaries such as this - [1] - and have reverted it until a consensus is reached here. a_man_alone (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologized for that, but he removed it off his talk page. The reason i kept adding him is that M was not only from James Bond, but was featured in the comics too. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 8:51 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right. That shows up the finality of an edit comment - apart from extreme circumstances, it lasts forever. Anyway, I kind of agree with the "M" addition, but just as you are OK to add it, anybody else is free to remove it - and the onus is on the contributor to prove a point, should it be questioned. To finalise the argument a reference needs to be found. I may even look for one myself, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I'm behind a firewall here, and cannot access much more than Wikipedia itself.
Do you mean that "M" as an homage to the Bond character was included in the comics? If it's a definite reference to the Bond character, then that would probably suffice as a valid (albeit primary source) reference. a_man_alone (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a reference, RottenTomatoes lists Richard Roxburgh as playing "M", and everyone knows that Ian Fleming invented "M" [2]. Then TheRealFennShysa reverted my comment claiming "please... there's more than one 'M' out there - Fleming didn't invent all of them" without giving even one example of another character named "M". That's all I want, really. If someone can give me even one example of another (famous) "M", I will admit that "M" in the movie isn't necessarily Ian Fleming's "M". But anyone who has seen all of the early James Bond films (starring Sean Connery) and also The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (also starring Sean Connery) knows that Allan Quatermain (in the movie) is based largely on James Bond, and that "M" in LXG is bases on "M" in the Bond books/movies.
And on a side-note, I'm really glad that we finally managed to move this discussion to the talk page rather then the recent edit page, although I really wish Ckatz and TheRealFennShysa would stop hiding and join us. Woknam66 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to leave the "M" addition in, as I also kind of agree with it, but I will comment that it's not up to editors who remove to justify themselves, but rather the editors who add to justify, and I still don't see any actual sources to say that it's James Bond's "M". It galls me to say it, but simply stating "Everybody knows..." isn't exactly a reliable source. I also take issue with the above statement "...Allan Quatermain (in the movie) is based largely on James Bond..." He's nothing like Bond. No gadgets, no womanising, no smoking & martini's... a_man_alone (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's page on Wikipedia for the comic book reveals that the "M" in the original story was Moriarty. When Moriarty's evil schemes fell through, Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock Holmes smarter brother, becomes the new "M". I think it is rather obvious that anyone named "M" at the top of Brittish National Defense is a nod to the works of Ian Fleming, but Wikipedia isn't about what I think, It's about what I can prove. Jmgariepy (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


M = Moriarty. The timeline from the movie predates Ian Flemming's "James Bond" by at least 50 years - At that time Flemming's "M" would be an infant - if born at all. Alan Quatermain appears in print in 1885 - the novel: King Solomon's Mines (and its sequels). Sherlock Holmes is introduced by Sir A. C Doyle in "A Study in Scarlet in 1887 (the last adventures of Sherlock Holmes were published in 1927). All of the characters in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are lifted from the pages of classic adventure / crime / horror / mystery. - all of which predate Flemming's character.

Whomever believes the "M" in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is Flemming's "M" needs a wake up call - and should read the classic adventures before making additional mistakes. 2001:56A:7005:3200:7D80:4AD0:4E98:40CA (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Features secion[edit]

The features section is incomprehensible and doesn't add anything to the article. I've moved it here for posterity.


==Features==
When the League find that Moriarty had been making submarines, one of the League called them "Nautiloi", with a Greek-type plural ending.
One of Moriarty's men is in heavy metal armor and has a flamethrower of roughly USA Army type with two big tanks and a smaller propellant tank.
There is a geography fault: the Nautilus sails up the Amur river into a frozen lake in Mongolia, with all the water along the way being wide and deep enough for a big submarine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.47.110 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Connery Comeback?[edit]

The lead for the article states that Sean Connery made a comeback in 2010, but this is not cited, no mention of it his made in his Wikipedia article, and all his post LXG credits on the IMDb are voice work. I will be deleting this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.40.97 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (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) 19:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source for nemo's guns[edit]

https://royalarmouries.org/stories/guns-in-popular-culture/

©Geni (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_League_of_Extraordinary_Gentlemen_(film)&oldid=1210019099"