Talk:Hellraiser (franchise)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellraiser DVD.jpg
Image:Hellraiser DVD.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 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) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters
I have redirected several characters from the template at the bottom of the page to their respective films, as they fail WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, and WP:PLOT. These characters will probably never be notable (I say probably, not definitely). Might I suggest creating a general page that can hold all of the main characters from the film series, sort of like Characters of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or List of characters in the Friday the 13th series?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Overview
Whoever made the "overview" did so in a messy manner. There appears to be only 4 films, because there are four distinct paragraphs, with multiple films clumped into each. It's ugly, misinformative, and should be split up. 96.53.235.198 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read it, then there does not appear to be only four films. The section is written like general prose, not like it was some table. It is presented with full, fleshed out paragraphs, instead of thin, weak paragraphs (what you are suggesting). It is written just like A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), Friday the 13th (franchise) (which is at GA status), and Halloween (franchise).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a prose section, not a list. There's no reason why multiple films can't be covered in a single paragraph.  If you actually read the section instead of just counting the paragraphs, you'll see each film is identified quite clearly in the prose.    Paul    730  22:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I was someone who walked in, not knowing it, and went to read a description of Inferno. What did I have to do? First I noticed it was missing from the list... then I found that it was included, and assumed it was a formatting error, because it really does look that messy. If Friday the 13th jumped off a bridge, would you too? It doesn't matter how other articles are unfortunately formatted. It looks awful, and I'm sure there's lots who agree with me (people who don't sit around all day and read horror series' articles and demand something that should be in a list form [EIGHT FILMS, not one or two] is in prose). 96.53.235.198 (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you just extrapolate an example of a film article into an example of a person? Wow. F13 is 11 films (soon to be 12). It's not in a "list" form because it doesn't flow well that way. If you're reading it top to bottom, like you should, then it flows better has 4 coherent paragraphs than it does as 8 thinly placed plot listings. If you want to know about Inferno, and only Inferno, then I suggest you follow the link to its page where you'll find only the Inferno plot. I believe that your personal definition of "messy" is a bit skewed, as I find 8 thinly placed paragraphs to be "messy".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that there has already been discussion of the overview section, whether it should be broken up or lumped up as it is now. I'm just going on record to say that I found the broken up version to be far more readable than the lump version.  One of the revision nazis obviously did not agree, since it lasted for a total of one minute. Kid Bugs (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of creating full paragraphs, and not weak ones simply because you want to separate each film by itself. They're barely 4 sentences. Per Writing_better_articles, "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea." and according to the GUA writing center, if they are shorter than 5 or 6 sentences, then you should rethink what you're trying to say. - Given that several of the films carry over storylines, it's much more cohesive to couple films together. Also, it's the same format used for Friday the 13th (franchise), Halloween (franchise), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a horrible tendancy on Wikipedia and similar sites to break every single detail into separate bullet points, paragraphs, sections, and articles. Reading more than a couple of sentences at a time is clearly a struggle for some people.  While ease of reading should be taken into account when laying out articles, the paragraphs in the Overview section are hardly that big.  We don't need to spoon-feed the reader every detail by giving it it's own paragraph, they're capable of reading the article.  I return to my earlier point; this is a prose article, not a list, and the paragraphs are a comfortable size.    Paul    730  22:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "A paragraph... is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea."
 * In this case, the paragraphs are awkward and bad form, because they have artificially joined two separate ideas. In the case of this article, having five or six sentences to give an overview of each film would be excessive, but combining distinct points just to lengthen out the paragraphs is poor writing.
 * Have it you way, though. My interest in this was just to see if there was anything I should look for that would need to be added when I work my way through the series later next week.  I am perfectly happy to save myself the trouble, while this is in your capable hands. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not being familar with the Hellraiser sequels, I can't comment on which films should be covered together. However, it is possible to cover multiple films in a single "point". Look at Halloween (franchise); the first two movies take place on the same night and feature largely the same cast, it makes sense to join them.  III stands alone, but 4, 5, and 6 form their own trilogy with running storylines and characters.  H20 and Resurrection established a new continuity and wrap up the Laurie Strode story, while the Rob Zombie films reboot the series altogether.  That's a good example of writing in relevant paragraphs without breaking the films up altogether.  I'm not sure how you could break up the Hellraiser movies but the current method seems fine; the first two movies have shared characters/plot elements, the theatrical and straight-to-DVD movies are kept separate, the final two movies were released the same year, etc.    Paul    730  07:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Budget
Okay, IMDB is not acceptable as a source for production budget figures. In "Clive Barker: Anarchic Prince of Horror" By Stephen Jones, Knave magazine, Vol 19, No 5 1987, Clive Barker states in the interview: "We made the picture in England for $1 million." (retrieved from http://www.clivebarker.info/hellraiser.html).

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a38509/barker-to-rewrite-big-budget-hellraiser.html states: "...Hellraiser, with a budget of only $900,000...".

http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1781Itemid=1 states "Hellraiser was an occasion when a production company had gambled a million dollar budget...".

Use it or not, I'm keeping my fuzzy paws off of the article. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Doug Bradley be in Hellraiser: Revelations?
I hope so. It wouldn't be the same without him 70.57.167.76 (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This would probably be best directed to the IMDb boards, since Wikipedia talk pages are not forums.  Mike   Allen   05:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Box office links
Who is deleting the links i keep making in the box office section? I have talk to several people about it, they all would enjoy a place where you can look at the movies list, in order, and make it so they can easily link to each page from there, instead of having to scroll! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.66.9 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am, because they are already linked in the above section. They do not need to be repeatedly linked. Additionally, there is a template at the bottom of the page that contains all of the films and links as well.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand they are linked above, however it would be easier to just see what order they are and read the full article instead of having to go through sentences that have other links. I know it sounds tedious, but literally everyone i know is would greatly enjoy it my way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.66.9 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You must not know a lot of people. If it's "order" and "ease" you want, then the template at the bottom of the page is your friend. It's call a "navigation template" for a reason. There is no need to overlink in the article when everything you want is already linked twice on the page, at the top and at the bottom.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cant find it in the bottom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Very bottom of the page? If you click "External links" in the table of contents you will see a box (it's collapsed, just hit "show"). The box contains all the links to all the films and their pages on Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously it should be automatically uncollapsed then. And that isnt convenient enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.22.18 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing the autocollapse is easy. As for "convenience", we're not here to hold people's hands. The average person can find it, and that's all that needs to be done. Give the average reader some credit.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hellraiser (franchise). 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/20060509164610/http://allmovie.com:80/cg/avg.dll to http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hellraiser (franchise). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203000124/http://www.cenobite.com/ to http://www.cenobite.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film jnestorius(talk) 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hellraiser (franchise). 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/20080222050653/http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=2994 to http://www.fangoria.com/news_article.php?id=2994
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714180723/http://www.cenobite.com/encyc/ to http://www.cenobite.com/encyc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826192421/http://cenobite.com/collect/comic.htm to http://cenobite.com/collect/comic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727060656/http://www.boom-studios.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?name=hellraiser&x=0&y=0 to http://www.boom-studios.com/catalogsearch/advanced/result/?name=hellraiser&x=0&y=0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hellraiser (franchise). 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/20100520070249/http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3201Itemid=1 to http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3201Itemid=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://subterraneanpress.com/hellraiser-the-toll

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical reaction
There needs to be metacritic, rotten tomato, or some other rating scheme added to the page following the crew and budget sections. IRMacGuyver (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No there doesn't. The problem is that most of these movies came out before Rotten Tomatoes exist. RT's aggregate scores for films before 1998 are not accurate, because most of those reviews they have list for older films are from the last 10 years. That doesn't give an accurate view of how they were reviewed when they came out. One can use those reviews to write a current assessment of the films, but not as a blanket table of number that lacks context. In addition, most of the films don't have enough reviews to use those figures regardless, and even then you cannot compare films that have say 15 reviews with films that have 60 reviews. There wouldn't be enough coverage to have a fair comparison.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well someone has gone ahead and added the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores anyway, and of course table lacks context and is full of unfortunate gaps. Even at the best of times Rotten Tomatoes is never really "accurate" and no one with any sense would use the table for any significant analysis or comparison. The overview might be of some limited use but any conclusions the table might lead you to could be just as well expressed using prose. I don't think the table says anything useful in this case, other than horror films rarely get good reviews from critics, and long running franchises almost always get worse and worse over time. -- 109.78.197.83 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editor in question tends to add them across the board, even though the MOS talks about usage of those figures for older films. I've removed it, but it all needs expanding and a revamp. The box office section as well, because we don't need a table for 5 figures of information like that, while the rest of it is basically blank.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see Bignole removed the table entirely. It would not surprise me if the "editor in question" adds the same table back again, as he doesn't seem to pay a whole lot of attention to edit summaries. He tends to keep doing the same thing over and over again, frequently has his own interpretation of the guidelines, and continues to do the same things even after being repeatedly asked nicely to try and pay more attention to various guidelines. (In particular I find his insistence on excessive formatting of text in strange contrast to his failure to format references, leaving bare URLs.) He might make an angry comment here, as if he doesn't have a long track record of doing this kind of thing over and over again, but it would not be justified and he would be better off taking a break and reflecting on why he gets reverted as often as he does. As Bignole has said the box office table full of gaps is also a recurring problem, same problem, different franchise article. -- 109.78.197.83 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)