Talk:Monster House (film)

Skulls & Bones plus Endless Death "zee"
Hi, does anyone know about the obsessive relationship of the creators of this movie and the " skulls and bones"? and the why the girl zee looks like "DEATH from the ENDLESS" by neil gaiman? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.142.190.245 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

DJ's Parents?
Does anybody know the names and voice actors of DJ's parents? So far, the only time they've been heard is in the trailer, when they say goodbye to him. Also, who does the voices of the girl scouts, policemen, and paperboy? These facts would be good to add to this article. dogman15 5:55, May 28, 2006 (Pacific Time Zone)

Screenshot
In this article, you will need a screenshot from the film (Probably just D.J. and Chowder with each other). --PJ Pete

Cost of production
How much did production cost on this movie? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.66.173.213 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"PG-13" Comment
I disagree with Michael Medved's statement that a "PG-13" rating would have been more appropriate for this movie. Despite his rave reviews for it, and no offense to him, I think he is just being a "crybaby" (an indication that he was probably scared by it himself). I have yet to see the movie, but however "scary" it might be, I believe that a PG rating is suitable.

Now obviously he said it, so I'll leave it be.

I just removed the part "adding that a PG-13 rating would have been more appropriate that it's PG rating", so from now on, if anyone puts back the line saying that a PG-13 rating is more appropriate than a PG rating, just remove it and believe that ONLY a PG rating is appropriate for this film, and when it comes out to DVD, it will ALWAYS stay a PG rating. Remember, it is a lie to say that it should have been rated either PG-13 or R, because it's not that violent as those two ratings for films.--PJ Pete
 * So in other words you're removing sourced research because you disagree with it? — CyberGhostface 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pete. There is a difference between G and PG which some people like Medved have apparently ignored. If G is for all audiences, and PG-13 is for those thirteen and over, logic tells you that PG is suitable for about seven and over. — Walloon 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Medved's statement the a PG-13 rating would be more appropriate. I though this movie was way to scary for most kids. I was scared! But regardless of my personal feelings, a quote by a professional reviewer is a fact. It's not a question of whether you are I agree that it should have been PG-13 it is fact that he said it. The contrary opinion from other reviewers is also sited. Sheherazahde (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, not because I personally think it's scary, but some of the themes and visuals can get rather dark, especially for a kid's movie (we're left to believe at some point that we see an old man die from the stress a kid caused him, with creepy visuals to boot). I know I'm responding to an old, old post, but felt that I should weigh in my opinion. Also, don't edit a quote out because you don't agree with it. That's just wrong. Gigakoops (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Internal Logic
It was brought into question that the house didn't change in front of the parents ,the teenage babysitter "Zee" or the Police the first time and that this was a flaw in the film. I don't think it was. In the film Preteen heroine Jenny comments on this by saying "smart house". she relised that the house knew it couldn't reveal itself to too many witnesses. That children were easiest victims. Also, the house is possessed by the soul of Constance that has a vendetta against DJ,believing him responsible for her husband's death. When the cops were about to take him away the house attacked to officers and the children less it lose a chance at revenge. Bones was attacked because he threw a bottle at the house. Constance knew that children aren't taken serious and only revealed herself to them. Zee never saw cause she was always out of reach and eventhough she was technically still a child. Constance/house figured it was risky to attack with her watching as adults might listen to a teenager. — Pixarian 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Genres
It's NOT a horror movie, because horror movies would be rated PG-13 AT LEAST in the U.S. --PJ Pete
 * And this is stated as fact where?--CyberGhostface 01:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

By the Sony company. --PJ Pete
 * Sources please? And I take it Poltergeist isn't a horror film, then?--CyberGhostface 02:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jaws was a horror film and it was rated PG by the MPAA. — 69.216.118.161 15:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Legend of Hell House was also rated PG. The Legend of Boggy Creek was rated G. — Walloon 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The original The War of the Worlds was rated G and so was The Raven. 69.216.118.161 17:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it should have a "Horror" warning on it. It was very scary. Sheherazahde (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DJ's age
I peg dj as a 11-13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.135.208 (talk • contribs)


 * He seems to be around that age, but without an official source to confirm the age, it seems we'll have to use that. Abby724 01:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Could someone with a little technical expertise sort out a disambiguation page for the film and the tv series? 134.36.126.47 02:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What Decade Is This Movie Set In?
The movie's decade is very scattered, according to the soundtrack, which includes a song that kids shouldn't hear (Tommy The Cat) and a Rush song that Primus made fun of on their album, Frizzle Fry. Also, the old logo being on the Mountain Dew bottle and Zee originally dressed in an Olivia Newton-John-like aerobic outfit would prove that the movie would be set in the '80s, but since Rush was more popular for Tom Sawyer in the 1980s than for XYZ and Primus not being well known, the movie would have to be set in 1991 or 1992, when Rush would, due to the Roll the Bones popularity, become popular for their Moving Pictures songs than for "Roll the Bones" or the as-then-unreleased "Stick It Out", Primus getting popular due to Jerry Was A Race Car Driver and Tommy the Cat, '80s outfits being taken over by Gothic-like outfits (depicted by Zee taking off the aerobic outfit to reveal her regular outfit) popularized by bands like Tool and the Butthole Surfers, and Mountain Dew didn't change the old logo (arguably, the most popular logo, still on shirts today) until after the teenager died while shooting the commercial when he fell to his death, circa 1995-1996. Also, violent games, like the Altered Beast-like game that Skull was playing in the film at the Dan the Whopper Man-era Burger King-like fast food establishment, became very, very popular in the 1990s due to Mortal Kombat. Also, in any scene, there is no computer whatsoever, not even in DJ's house. Also, there's more cassettes being played than vinyl records (the 1980s) or CDs (the later 1990s, when though Primus' album, Sailing the Seas of Cheese, was released on CD in 1991 by Interscope), and that Zee drives a Yugo-like car.

Due to all of these observations, I'd have to say that the film was set on October 29, 1991-October 31, 1991. Great job showing the '90s culture in good ways, Spielburg....oh, and The Wild sucks badly. This movie is funnier and better and pretty much the greatest film ever made until Talladega Nights was released. - A&MFan

I'd have to disagree with the idea that the film is set in the 90's. The article says 1975, but how then do you explain the super-soaker water guns (which came out in the late 1980s)? Not to mention the kids did not have the bowl-haircut that was very common from (roughly) 1974-1985. My impression is the film is set around 1987-1988. Can anyone confirm an official source saying one way or the other?

EDIT: The movie would be set in 1990, since the old man who owned the house claimed to be set free after 45 years. As seen in an old photograph, the man served in a demolition unit during WWII. The war ended in 1945, and that same year he met his wife, and that same year she died. 1945+45 years would add up to 1990. That is, unless the man had served in the Korean War (1950-1953), then the movie would be set somewhere in 1997 or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2BE0:C360:78ED:8B16:38C2:DFA0 (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Trimming
I tried to do a trimming of the plot, but I think it would be helpful to trim it more. I might try to later, but anyone else is welcome, of course. I also added two screenshots. Thief12 01:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Article States
''The film's characters are animated primarily utilizing performance capture, making it the second film to use the technology so extensively, following producer Robert Zemeckis' The Polar Express. The film completed production in early 2006.''

But the article on Motion capture says the first film to use it exclusively (this would therefore also mean "extensively," wouldn't it?) was Final Fantasy.

So this makes Monster House #3, not #2? Dikke poes 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monster-house6.jpg
Image:Monster-house6.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monster-house2.jpg
Image:Monster-house2.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monster house poster.jpg
Image:Monster house poster.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) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Constance
Wouldn't being encased in Concrete mummify someone, instead of allowing you to decay into bones? Im not sure, but it confused me when Constance was a skeleton, if there was no way for air or moisture to enter? In other words, howd she decay? Im not exaclty sure, though.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.25.70 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no way for moisture to escape, either. —Tamfang (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be one of the film's many goofs. Why didn't anybody just shut off the concrete mixer?! Those things pour concrete fast, but not fast enough for her have drowned in it. Trying to ignore this error, ... she fell into the basement BEFORE the concrete was poured, meaning it is possible that she was not completely encased in the concrete. It might not have gotten behind her back. Even the slightest gap could have let worms in to eat her. In-Correct (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Innapropriate categories?
This article is in the Films set in the 20s, 30s and 80s categories. I don't see how this is true, so should these be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSausage01 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot Bloat
Despite a note at either end of the Plot section warning that it was already too long, irresponsible editors have been steadily adding unneeded particulars. WP:FILMPLOT requires that a summary should be no more than 400-700 words and the section has now been reduced to just within that length based on its state as of 17 July 2015. Further additions will be deleted. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition
The reference of the infomation about AFI's 10 Top 10 nomination is not valid yet. Please, allow me to change it to this link:. Dr.saze (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monster House (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/20071008141635/http://www.lostintheplot.com/blog/?p=47 to http://www.lostintheplot.com/blog/?p=47
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311114306/http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/home.jsp to http://www.michaelmedved.com/pg/jsp/eot/home.jsp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/10top10.pdf?docID=381&AddInterest=1781

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) 05:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

D.J's Real name
Just wondering why D.J's name is listed as "Dustin James", at no point in the film does it mention this is his name. Same goes for Nebbercracker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishreker14 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"Monster House (2006 film" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Monster House (2006 film and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Year?
I've removed the year in which the events of the film occur from the plot summary, as it has been contested (including the decade per an earlier discussion on this page). If sources have established the year, or we can reach a consensus here, I'd be happy to see it reinstated. DonIago (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)