Talk:House of the Dead (film)/Archive 1

Ummm...
"causing an explosion that would have required about 400 pounds of high-powered plastic explosives."? Did someone actually say that in the movie? Otherwise, I'd say it probably belongs somewhere other than the "plot" section. Just wondering...

How is THIS a cult film?
Everyone hates it! (Ibaranoff24 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Apparently there are a lot of people who consider Boll to be the Ed Wood of our generation and they apparently adore his films genuily because of their low-quality. Sounds crazy but it's mentioned on Boll's page here at Wikipedia. (HannuMakinen)


 * A few, certainly, but the box office returns would seem to argue against there being 'a lot' of Boll fans. That said, I don't think this movie is really the 9th worst ever made (its position on the IMDB bottom 100 last I looked). Mark Grant 21:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, this movie has a decent cult following, and I believe it has sold pretty well on DVD. Thus, it is a "cult" movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.215.101 (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual house...
Okay, I'm getting the feeling that people who keep adding incorrect info about the movie not actually having a house have not even watched the film or are just looking to confuse readers. There is a house in the film, wether or not it's the same house as in the game does not make a difference since the film is intended to be a prequel to the game. Both the movie and game are rather dumb, but that's no reason to constantly vandalize the page.--HannuMakinen 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your point, from what I remember it's more of a shack in the woods. 'Shack of the Dead' doesn't quite have the same ring to it :). Mark Grant 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it has four walls, a ceiling a door and a couple of windows, it's a house, it doesn't matter what type. Isn't the house in the game more of a mansion anyway? -TheHande 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think so, but I've only seen bits of the game in an arcade. It's certainly closer to being a house than the shack in the movie was. Mark Grant 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you even trying to make a point here? All I see this as is unnecessary nit-picking. -TheHande 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Box office
BTW, I believe this movie more than made a profit from the DVD release even though it made little in the cinema, which is presumably why a sequel was made. If anyone knows of a reliable source for DVD sales figures it may be worth adding to the article. Mark Grant 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the most critically and commercially panned movies of all time
It's a well known fact that this movie was universally hated and panned by movie-goers and critics alike. The film's production values and overall quality are truly substandard.

It's certainly flabbergasting that those facts are nowhere to be found in the page. I think it's important to state it, for this movie will forever be associated with terrible film-making.

Fherrp 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

???

Linking to a few articles criticizing the movie would probably fit into Wiki-guidelines. Just outright saying this movie was terrible is not. I liked the first half. It was interesting and suspenseful. Sadly, the last half was nonsense.

Lots42 02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're obviously heavily biased against the film and in no position to give any sort of objective opinion on it. Oh yeah, it's bad movie, but c'mon, I can name about two dozen horror-films that were worse. It's not really that significant a movie and not that significant a franchise that it's based on. It's just a cheezy horror-film no different from any number of sequels and rip-offs of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elmstreet. So just get over yourself and stop championing it as something that was birthed by Satan. -TheHande 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A Note On Casper
The character of Casper -survives- the movie. I know, I know, but she does. Seriously. Her character appears in the sequel. Lots42 08:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We all know all this, it's on the sequel's page! -TheHande 18:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have made myself clearer; I had just fixed some text saying that Casper does not survive. Lots42 07:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Look by the end of the film Casper was dead as a doornail. The screenwriters who made the sequel hated Boll and his film enough not to do any backchecking which is the reason why she also appears in the sequel. Now unless she was missing both her legs in the second film there's no evidence that her presense there wasn't just a continuity issue. -TheHande 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So the screenwriters who hate Boll hate him enough so as to not watch the film? Not to even check the film's Wikipedia entry? Not to even spend five minutes Googling synopses to find out if the actress they hired -died- in the previous film? Come on. Seriously. Or even this; "Ma'am?" "Yes?" "Did the character you played in the first film die or not?" "Oh, I died, horribly. Legs chopped off, then I exploded." Lots42 10:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly -TheHande 14:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters' names
Someone keeps changing the character names and descriptions to "funny" parodies, which, despite the movie being bad or not, are just not funny at all. Right now I'm in no conditions of changing them back, so if someone is able to fix them - or delete the entire section, please do. And in a note for whoever is doing this, if you hate the film so much there is always Uncyclopedia to perform this kind of joke. -Luiz Alves 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

is the guy's name seriously captain kirk or is that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.0.160 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, yes it is. Lots42 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation
I think the Character section should be reformatted into a plot section. I know, I could do it and maybe I will. But not now. Lots42 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Houseofthedeadfilmposter.jpg
Image:Houseofthedeadfilmposter.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 ensure 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) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Director's cut
See here. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of the Dead (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124180717/http://www.house-of-the-dead.com/ to http://www.house-of-the-dead.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) 08:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)