User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 6

Siege of Malakand
Thanks for the GA. Any pointers or suggestions? SGGH speak! 19:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Peer review hasn't been overly helpful either, I've had to rely on FAC on more than one occasion now to get helpful pointers and suggestions, it's a shame. But that's no stab at you or anything it's just something about wikipedia :P SGGH speak! 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re
Yes I'm back! Holiday was great thanks, hard to gwt reajusted though, I was kinda put off by the size of my watchlist when I logged on. Looks like nothin major has happened, although alot of vandilism on The Simpsons Movie. Anyway, has anything really massive happened that I should know about? And I might get back to article improving at the weekend, but I'm far to tired now. Gran2 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell! That's fantastic and so much better than it was, I think I'll pass it myself. And I have a science GCSE exam tomorrow morning, which I am really really not looking forward to. Gran2 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good luck with yours to, and Jack Sparrow is now passed. Gran2 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, I've made the changes you suggested to David Mitchell (actor), could you take another look? Gran2 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You should buy the DVD, Peep Show is "bloody brilliant", one of the best shows on the century. And it'll take a while to do HP1, I need a load of reviews (which won't be that hard) and a load of production, which as the film's don't have DVD commentaries, might do. But I'll look around when I have time. The rest of the HP film articles are in a terrible state though, massive tabled cast sections. Anyway. Gran2 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Road to Perdition
I've revised the article heavily today (had free time on my hands). I'm not done; got some more references to go and some more themes to explore. I feel like I'm getting too immersed into the material, though, to really realize what's missing. Can you take a look at it and see if there's anything that seems out of place, besides the obvious (like disconnected lines in the Cast section)? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will probably remove the "Development" subsection title since it doesn't focus on that so much, but I think "Writing" should be self-contained because of the specific details of the adaptation process. Also, I intended for "Filming" to deal with general logistics, while "Cinematography" should exist because of its prominence in the film.  Maybe there's information that I need to re-distribute.  They're fairly related, but I'll try to keep "Filming" focused on timelines, locations, and setups.  There's a lot of information at the ASC reference -- I'll see what I can wean from it.  There's a lot of detail in these things that give me a headache, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's done. I was using fan sites' copies of the production notes, which are available on the official site, but locked in a Flash format.  I was planning to work out the official link itself, 'cause using a fan site to cite production notes can be questioned in an article review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you happen to have access to any British magazines listed at Talk:Road to Perdition? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty close to completeness... I have a Critical reaction section to write out (boy, that'll be fun), and I'm hoping to expand more on the themes, especially Water. (If I recall correctly, it should be covered in the captioned audio commentary, so I need to get my hands on the movie.) Do you have any further suggestions based on what's there so far? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben-Hur
Citing WP:NOT is not enough to warrant your removal of the DVD covers. These graphics are not being used merely as a repository. The DVD is mentioned in the article and the covers are warranted. Furthermore I have made them as small as possible to in order to be as less obtrusive as possible. I politely asked for a discussion before removing them; where upon you took on yourself to interpret Wiki guidelines which are open to interpretation. Kindly stop removing these images or participate in a discussion of why you feel they shouldn't be there. Thank You. FrankWilliams 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Savvy?
I'll be seeing Pirates 3 tonight, so I'll be able to read through Sparrow's article without worry of spoiling anything.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Lucky. They don't do intermissions here. lol. I figured 2 hours 47 minutes + 10 minutes of previews + getting there early to find a seat and sit down...it's going to be a long movie..lol.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, I wasn't impressed. It wasn't horrible, but had that been the first movie, instead of the third, I would have disliked it completely. The suspense just wasn't there, and the jokes seemed weaker than the second film. I rank them best to worst in order of their release.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was fun to watch, but I felt somewhat unsatisfied. The coolest part of the movie -- Davey Jones's men -- were mostly in the background.  Keith Richards was damn fitting as a pirate, though.  I guess I found the ending with Calypso inconclusive; meant to be that way, but I was expecting her to do something 1000x the scale of the Kraken.  I think I'd have to agree with Bignole on his order, though it's been a while since I've seen the first one.  It was pretty macabre all the way through, especially the beginning, sheesh!  Way to start off a movie like that. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought that AWE lacked the comedy, that they tried to hard and just fell too many times.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming back to Aquaman, I appreciate your support.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

McFly (band)
Just wondering what has to be done to get the above article up to GA-status after my nomination last night (You failed it) --SteelersFan UK06 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man film series
I've gone ahead and merged the Cannon Films article into the film series article. What do you think could be done to expand the film series article some more to gain some recognition as a GA? I feel that it's still a little underdeveloped at the moment. I was considering a "Cast and crew" section where the contracts for the trilogy can be discussed. For example, Maguire and Dunst were contracted for three, I believe, but Raimi only signed on for one film at the beginning. We can also write about the change of the writers throughout the series, but I don't want to be too redundant based on what's in the existing film articles. Any ideas? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of production information did you have in mind? I was thinking of broader categories, like why they chose the villains for the film, but not necessarily describing their application in full (like the Green Goblin's suit).  We could also mention common areas where Spider-Man was filmed -- maybe there's a consistency to the process?  I'll have to look at the individual film articles to refresh my memory on their productions.  Also, I thought I had read that Raimi was only signed onto the first film -- maybe he signed on the second one during production of the first?  Guess some research will be required.


 * Also, I've been scouring the Internets for headlines for The Shawshank Redemption. It's ridiculously hard, since it's a film from 1994.  Do you ever plan to work on it down the run?  It seems that the DVD would have a really good commentary, though I don't know if it would be captioned for me to implement. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant Freakin' Robots!
Hi there. Thanks for correcting my placement on the Transformers (film) article. I don't know why I put it before the comma; I'm normally pretty good at that! Out of interest, why did you convert the cite web template to a cite news one? Also, what's your take on the conversation going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers? Mathewignash and I seem to be butting heads a lot recently! LOL! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you heard the theme song? I wish Erik could hear it, it's actually pretty cool, in my opinion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do listen to music, you know... was listening to The Postal Service just now, with the limited aid of this. The theme song sounds decent to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually really excited about the movie, because it looks really good in the trailers (then again, so did Spider-Man 3). I'm expecting a huge action movie though, and Bay generally delivers on those... generally. I don't usually care for films that are entirely CGI. I like the blend of reality and computer better.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it's kind of like those die-hard Harry Potter fans. They have their beef with the films when things get cut out, but since I never read the books it was all different for me. I watched the Beast Wars cartoons a little, and I vaguely remember the movie, but nothing enough to make me say "hey, they didn't do that". So, I think that works to my advantage in these types of instances. I watched the video of Bay's interview on Yahoo Movies, and I about died when he's like "Why did I put the flames on Optimus Prime, because I wanted to, because I like them." I think, so long as they make the story work, and believable (to an extent, they are robots from space, so to speak) that it's going to be a good film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true, about Potter's scare as opposed to Prime's flames. Well, it's less than a month away, so we'll find out soon enough.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really sure how to leave messages for a user, I'm new to wikipedia. I was just wondering why you (I think it was you, but I could be wrong!) deleted my reference to the unofficial theme song for Transformers. I thought it was fair to include this, since many fans are not happy with the theme song chosen, and prefer the Black Lab version. I understand that since its not on the soundtrack it doesn't have any direct bearing to the film, but I thought that it was an interesting piece of information for fans who are unaware of the existance of the unofficial theme. Milenacka (talk • contrib)

Thanks so much for the reply! I will definitely read up on the things you suggested. Thanks for all your hard work! Milenacka (talk • contrib) 12:43, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

ratatouille character list, an explanation.
saw your revert of my revert back to a basic list. The movie is not out yet, and the character descriptions *will* change (in a spoiler-way, unfortunately, as the characters are not exactly all they appear based on the released trailer information). Just trying to wait until the movie comes out before making dramatic changes to the article, mainly. SpikeJones 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you. I agree with you about it helping the compactness of the film's plot, but (a) it is premature to post the items before the film is released, and (b) certain character descriptions that have not been revealed are critical (spoiler-ish) to the plot. Which brings up a question that may be answered on a page similar to Citizen Kane, where you don't want to mention Rosebud too early in the article or in the description of Kane ("Kane was a publisher that loved his sled named Rosebud..."). SpikeJones 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tintin (2009 film)
Heads up... the article's been created. I try to watchlist potential articles on my subpage, but I had Tintin (film) being watched, not the one with the release year. What do you think? It's a decent start so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FA pursuit
You should probably get Titanic up to FA standards pretty soon. If you'd like, I can help provide references for you. E.T. looks great otherwise; I'll go ahead and support it once all the comments are addressed. If you dispute any of my comments, feel free to say so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually got H's in my English classes in high school (honors classes, and H's were higher than A's). I also got a perfect 36 on the Reading section of my ACT, with 32 being the composite score.  So yeah, my brain is attuned to the English language, I suppose.  Probably would've been an English major if there weren't so little career opportunities with it, as opposed to my business major. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I tend to look upon FACs with the most critical eye possible. FA-class articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia has to offer, you know? I try to read everything from an outsider's eye because I believe it can be easy to get into the mindset of, "They'll know what I'm talking about," especially for notable aspects of films. For a lot of people, famous movie quotes can be accepted as such, but there still needs to be some kind of verifiable report of its prominence among people.

Film articles like Casino Royale, quite frankly, are a little too messy for my tastes. I find it hard to look at some film FACs because I think about how I would've written it if I was the one improving it. Your FAs and FACs have been consistently in line with the guidelines in respect to content and references, so they're easy to evaluate. I've tried my hand at helping film GACs, but it's hard to determine how much is enough to satisfy just the GA criteria. Something like this and Ibaranoff's other GAs, I think should've failed because there were so few references in regard to them. They're not broad enough in scope, in my opinion, to warrant that kind of recognition, and perhaps never will be. I remember trying to help create articles one time, and I created Epoch (film). I found squat about that film, and I doubt it'll ever be anything beyond start-class. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a funny rip on Wikipedia that goes like this:
 * First edit:
 * The human hand has five fingers.


 * Second edit:
 * The human hand has five fingers.[citation needed]

Kind of captures the hardcore nature nicely. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to get my hands back on the book, Rebels on the Backlot, to write about the negative reception of Fight Club at the beginning. Judging from just the RT rating, it would seem that the film was a hit when it came out, when it became more popular later on. I'd like to include some more reviews for the film -- there was even a quote in the book about Quentin Tarantino liking it, and I never heard him say anything about Fight Club before. As for The Fountain, I still need to add more reviews, and I'd also like to see if I can explore the themes more, since I don't feel that the article quite explains all the possible interpretations for the film. I have no doubt the rest of the content is in good shape, but I guess there are just some loose ends that I'd like to tie up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that IMDb has been contested as an attributable source in some FA nominations, I would say no. The information on IMDb is user-submitted, and there's no assurance that all submitted information is correct. (We've seen incorrect budget information there.) The only thing I would say is acceptable at IMDb is the cast/crew list post-release, because it's essentially an electronic copy of the end credits. I don't think it's that important to point out what the exact start/end dates of filming were -- if you can find an attributable source that explains it, great, but I think something like "filmed in spring of 1998" would still be appropriate. I doubt people would be salivating for the specific knowledge of when filming began and concluded. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The ship's article is RMS Titanic, so that's one way to do it. Another is to just precede Titanic with "the film" or "the ship" and similar sorts of wording. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you used Find Articles before? I don't know if it'll come in handy with film news -- I found a couple of interviews for my Good Will Hunting research. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like 1950. It's not that great, though -- you'll need to use smart keywords to filter out the crap. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it is appropriate to link them here. The sites are not like the Fight Club article copies that I have on my subpage.  The site isn't being surreptitious in presenting articles or anything, so linking there would be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

E.T.
If you're looking to address the most recent editor's concern over E.T. as an FA, I found three PDFs, two of them that were mentioned by him -- "The Look Back at E.T." and "Why E.T. Must Go Home", and a third called "The Gospel According to Spielberg in E.T.". Not sure how to get them to you, but let me know if you're interested. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How can I get the PDFs to you, then? You don't have an e-mail for contact, and I'm not aware of any file server where I can dump PDFs for another's access. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have them in case you ever want 'em. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, here and here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agh, after taking a closer look at the databases, I've found some amazing resources that render my Fight Club and The Fountain incomplete! Look at this for The Fountain: ''The key colors in The Fountain are gold, "representing the Mayans, a sort of fool's gold, a false truth," and white, representing mortality and truth. Weisz's character is used as a metaphor for this truth, and often appears either dressed in white or enveloped in white light. Tangentially, Libatique adds, there is green, "which exists, although minimally, as the color of life," and red, which is associated with death. "Rather than allow the three time periods to have a disparity, we wanted a similarity in order to facilitate the editing. The movie was going to cut jarringly by virtue of what you saw in the frame, but if we were consistent with the color, at least that element wouldn't seem jarring."'' Sigh! So much left to include. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, no. I wish the stuff I found were that easily available.  I've been looking more closely at the databases I have access to with my university account, more than I did before.  I've been finding more film journals and magazines that aren't always listed elsewhere.  It's a lot of keyword manipulation and filtering for full-text articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, did you type that American Cinematographer article from a reprint? I didn't get what "My 2007 supp" meant. Alientraveller 12:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure, actually. It appears to be a reprint.  Let me see if I can revisit the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got the page saved so I saw. Unfortunately, the "not comprehensive" opposition is something Raul takes seriously. He's usually unlikely to fail an article if someone says "too long"...but if someone says "uncomprehensive" and provides a good reason in his eyes...then it's done for. Sorry. I'd just develop some of those themes some more, and try (I know it will be difficult) to answer some of the opposition Awa brought up. I'll see if I can get some more journals like I did. Are they helping at all?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole above. I have sources to provide, but I don't know how to get them to you. Any suggestions? Throwaway e-mail? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try and read through it to see if it was worth it or not. I have a class right now that I'm heading to, and then I have to go the Hospice to pick up some more clients for my volunteer hours.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be a week before I can sit down an concentrate on it, I have to accumulate 30 hours of community service for my class by next monday (july 16). Speaking of, I'm about to leave to go get some hours here in a second. I'll try and scourage some sources when I get back.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3
I don't know what production stills are available now, but I think a full-suited Venom (with Eddie's face showing) would be appropriate and be tied into some of the Effects detail, too. And I guess the Harry picture seems so outdated considering we placed it there way before the film came out. I guess I just think more detail could be provided, more of a scene than just the appearance of Harry, like from the battle at the end of the movie. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sandman picture is suitable. I was thinking in the course of the week to implement anything useful from the extra citations on the talk page.  Not to mention I don't think anyone got their hands on that Making of Spider-Man 3 book?  I wonder how useful that resource could be. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: JP cinema
So is the name of the article the problem? Would it be better to call it Jurassic Park films? (I was thinking about a similar notion for Batman films myself, since these films aren't in a pretty order like the Spidey films, either.) What do you think would be the best setup? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really interested in shaping this one up like Spider-Man film series. I just think it would be appropriate to have the structure laid out in terms of box office performance and critical reaction to Jurassic Park films, so that the mindset can be promoted that talked-about films should be placed in broader articles whenever possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

your comments on Himachal GAC
your comments-

GA fail Makes for a difficult read, so not well-written and therefore it does not pass the criteria. Alientraveller 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

my comments- what do you mean by- makes for a difficult read. did you mean by length or grammatic errors. i revised the article twice. i would suggest you to re-review the whole article. remember it is for GAC not FAC. 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PotC Template
I will make those edits for you, but even so, the templates created for that subject must be used. That is the whole point of why they are created. user talk: Hpfan1

Transformers movie
The poster in the infobox got screwed up somehow (you probably already know that). I uploaded the new poster again and now it seems fixed. Just thought you wanted to know.--Atlan (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great set of edits to overhaul the article. The only thing I undid was your change of budget citation back to the original. It's used elsewhere in the article, and it makes more sense to stick with the 'original', especially since LR is only rarely a reliable source, and they usually trafic in rumors and speculation. Although some rumors and breaking news they've revealed has proven true, ther have been discussions at dark knight (film) and Spider-man 3, i think was the other, about LR and SuperheroHype, and batman on Film, and so on. The consensus was to avoid them except in cases of exclusive interviews and direct exclusive publicity releases which can be verified by the 'other side' of the interview or releasing party. Hope that helps explain my revert. Otherwise, I like the reorganization. ThuranX 21:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd keep it in the article. We don't have a "film series" page, and it's a little soon to make its own article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm eager to see it as well, but i'm not sure if that's quite the great mix you think it will be. Spielberg has had some great stories, true, but he's not as consistently strong as he once was. Bay on the other hand, is a Hollywood punchline for the marketing of big explosions. I'm hoping that Spielberg's storytelling is strong this time, and his name nad influence are enough to really keep Bay from his traditional 'Ok, in this scene, you run away from the big explosion, jump into the air and scream. In post, we'll slow it down till you look just like my Bad Boys movie'. I'm  going as soon as it opens, yeah, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm already unimpressed with how little can be seen of the robots in the ads. with so many clear pics on the 'net, it can't all be editing to maintain the mystery. we'll see. ThuranX 13:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I haven't. My buddy was telling me about a Burger King one, and I was on the computer when I realized it was playing on the tv...so I missed it. I generally don't watch a lot of television shows, so seeing commercials or film tv spots doesn't always happen unless they put them on the web. I usually watch movies. Though I have been watching a lot of ESPN lately, and last night they were plugging Live Free or Die Hard like I don't know what. ESPN spots, regular TV spots, it was crazy.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been to the BK site to hear him talk about the Autobots and Deceptacons. I'll check the link you gave me when I get home... ( at work right now).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those were cool. The BK one is the best. "Sir, you need a car.....Sir you need a driver." "Oh come on!". LOL. I didn't think the "lips" were that bad.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, either they haven't put in Weaving's voice for the trailers (not uncommon, the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' trailer didn't have the film voices), they are disguising it with some form of synthesis, or he just isn't voicing Megatron. I watched that new clip on SHH and it doesn't sound like Weaving at all.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but Hugo Weaving isn't a voice actor by trade. It's like Bruce Willis in Over the Hedge or any other film actor that performs some voice work. I could understand if he was a voice actor, but I would assume that they paid for his distinct voice, I mean, if they wanted a voice actor they could have saved money (which we know Bay is all about) and had Welker do the voice. Weaving is becoming a bigger name in the States, thanks to his part in the Matrix and LOTR, then you have V. It seems odd that he would disguise his voice for the film. Have you read anywhere that he plans to disguise his voice? Generally, voice actors disguise their voice to distinguish between characters, like Hank Azaria for The Simpsons.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting that he didn't sound a bit like Weaving. It got me to thinking that maybe they didn't dub his voice in for any of the trailers or clips for when actors are promoting on shows. I guess I'll know tomorrow at 8pm if it's the same voice.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just got back, have to do laundry and take 3 quizes, but I will say this, it's the first movie this summer that has not let me down. It was intense, and action pack from start to finish.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to ruin anything for you, or Erik for that matter. Bumblebee and his radio are a trip. All the Autobots are pretty cool, and pretty different in personality. I don't know what you want to know about Starscream. You really don't see many of the Decepticons till the last 30-40 minutes of the film. If I tell you tell you too much about SS then it may ruin the ending. I can't wait to see it again.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The subtitles (Transformer language) show that the tank refers to himself as Devastator.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at the moment. I haven't had a chance to actually sit down and read the whole thing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
I don't know. I can see the "spoiler" one, because it's relatively new, and most people that don't frequent often could probably remember seeing them. You'd think though, that once you pointed them to the guidelines/policies that they'd be like "ok, I get it". There was one user, just yesterday, that wanted to post the Bruce Campbell cameo as trivia. I don't know if it was the link I gave, or the fact that I told him that it was already in the cast section, but they were like "thanks for letting me know". Everyone's different I guess.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Downfall....of Hitler
Nope. The story kind of rings a bell, but I think that's just because they've been doing things about his last days on the History channel, I think. I know and like german rock music. I can understand a little bit of it as well, thanks to a semester of German.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, $1 Billion. lol. I think people are tired of the Simpsons, and I think a movie would have been the best exit. But alas, 19 seasons and they won't go away. They just aren't funny any longer...or maybe I just grew up and they are still funny to younger people. I'm sure the die-hard fans will see it opening weekend, but after that...I wouldn't expect much from it. And F4? I saw that with 8 people, and when I say 8 people, I literally mean there were 8 people in the theater. That's how I plan to see it again, which should take about 2 weeks. lol.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that the scene where it appears a big transformer jumps on top of a small one, on what appears to be the roof of a building or bridge trestle?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What'd you do, slow it down? lol. It's not that close, I couldn't figure out who was doing it. I thought it was funny that they had a VW Bug right next to Bumblebee.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless something comes up, I'll probably see it the day of its release.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, depending on what's due for school, I may see it at the 8 o'clock showing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I think a better source should be found for that bit that Raul added on E.T., because I'm sure that IMDb link will draw criticism.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TDK tlak page archives???
Please undo and reexamine your archiving of Talk:The Dark Knight (film). You had an entire section built and archived in a day. I recommend that instead, you archive any and all discussion which ended BEFORE June first, and label the archive as ending may 2007. I already reverted the cites for use section back to the main page. Erik, and others, have been building those sections and maintaining them as needed. creating multiples will lead to duplications of our efforts, which wastes time. Please reexamine and edit as needed, thank you. ThuranX 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you much. Looks much better now for all involved. current talks still current, old stuff archived. thanks again. ThuranX 11:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanted (film)
I'm trying to work out the structure of this film article, using a couple of citations that surfaced this morning. Do you have any suggestions for the article's layout, particularly the organization of the sentences in Filming? It's kind of a jump-around mess at the moment... what would be the best flow of the different aspects of production? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clean-up. I guess I felt at first that subsections would be appropriate because the paragraphs aren't very interrelated.  The order seems suitable for the time being, though, so I removed the subsections per your suggestion.  I'll restore them if there's significant information to warrant subsectioning, a la Road to Perdition.  —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never read the comic book, actually. It seems like it would be an interesting read, being a Watchmen for supervillains.  I think that bit of information helps illustrate to nonreaders like me the kind of action film that it will be, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought it had some great parts, but I found the execution kind of odd at times. I hope to check out its sequel Day Watch sometime soon. By the way, I put Downfall on my Netflix queue. I've seen 11:14 and Blood Diamond recently, but neither blew me away. The latter was more tragic because I was thinking the whole time about how the violence in it really does take place in the real world, as opposed to action romps (like Wanted will probably have). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous film discussion
I actually liked United 93 a great deal. I thought that Greengrass had the appropriate style and avoided Hollywood clichés very well. WTC, on the other hand, I found to be rather conventional. Part of it was due to Cage's involvement, as I can't really see him as anyone else but Cage. I also thought WTC, while it had emotionally strong parts, fell in some Hollywood traps.

As for Titanic, it's a tough call. You could have a stand-alone Historical accuracy section that could contain production information related to being close to its background (if you haven't written about it already), any creative licensing Cameron took with the actual event, and have specific criticisms by historians. I think I recall the portrayal of some of the film's real-life characters being criticized as inaccurate, but it's been a while. Such a section might be a pretty easy setup for editors to throw in their OR, though -- silly stuff like "It was a different color than what I saw in this book". You could separate the attempted background research and the outside criticism in a Production section (Writing subsection?) and a "Historical criticism"-type subsection under the Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on some guidelines at User:Erik/Film article guidelines. Do you have any suggestions about what I have so far or any ideas for the blank sections? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know, the current guidelines aren't bad, but Bignole and I had planned to address specific cases of information (with his guidelines being future-based and mine being in general). Just decided to type up some rough draft paragraphs for the subpage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the first film, so I'm not sure. I'll need to see it before Rise of the Silver Surfer, obviously. I'm interested in the portrayal of Galactus, though I'm not sure what to expect. (Rumors of a cloud were false, right?) I'm not sure if I'm a big enough fan of superhero films to see all of them, as I've passed over stuff like Elektra and Ghost Rider. Is it worth the admission? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

An aircraft carrier Transformer for the sequel!? Holy God, that'd decimate nations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably ASAP, haha. I'm in the States, so it depends on whenever it's captioned the soonest in the area.  I'm gonna see the movie Knocked Up captioned tonight, which was fairly soon after its release, same with At World's End.  I would be surprised if Transformers didn't get captioned within the first two weeks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with such an action. I did not pursue it at the same time as the Magneto merger because I recall that there was some hype about Wolverine. I'd suggest a clean-up on the article mainspace, though -- I'm not so crazy about being so detailed about Latino Review's script review. It should be incorporated into the Production section in a writing context, like what you did for Jurassic Park IV. You want to clean it up today? I believe I've got time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series
I'd appreciate it if you gave your opinion for the deletion of List of deaths in The Sopranos series at Articles for deletion/List of deaths in The Sopranos series. Thanks. :) The Filmaker 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacing
Edits like this and this make zero change in appearance for the article. The newline makes it easier to read while editing. –Pomte 11:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice. I fixed the template. –Pomte 11:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

E.T. help
He can't cut and past the PDF, they are viewable only. I can view the one he's looking so..if it can wait, I can look at it on Thursday (have a project that I have to work on today). Or Erik, if he has the time could look it up.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you abide by WP:OWN, but you have a more vested interest in the film than I do. (Not saying that I dislike the film, just that the thematic exploration would be more appropriate in your hands.)  As you saw what I just said to Bignole, I'm not quite clear how appropriate some analyses (such as that father/phallus reference) as a whole.  I'll take a look at what I have -- will need to dig them up again, as they're on my home PC.  I think from what I saw, they were mostly related to the film's Christian allegories. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was happy. I'll try and get through that PDF that I mentioned this afternoon. I'll be packing because I'm going home for the Father's Day weekend. Bignole 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't have time to read through the articles, since I'm getting on a plane at 7am tomorrow. I was able to print the text, scan and upload it into photobucket. So, if you want to know what that editors was looking at from author Bick, you can view the available pages here. Bignole 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have an account? You should be able to view it, I've viewed other people's before. See if you can view this. If so I'll put other stuff up this way.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Page 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,

There wasn't a page 31, I don't know why, it just wasn't there. The draw backs of not going to the library and getting it first hand I guess. Anyway, I hope he wasn't in mid thought between pages. Hoep they help.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the B-star (started to call it the "BS" but figured that might come off wrong..lol). How much longer till the next big E.T. date?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

TMcC
Thanks, I was going to hold out for a while on it, but I don't have much luck with PRs so nomination is the best change of moving the page forward. Gran2 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was actually looking ET earlier, I really can't see anything wrong with it personally, So I'll get around to supporting it in a while. Gran2 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

More Batman
I've been sandboxing Batman in a userspace page, and if you have noticed I've been periodically inserting rewritten portions into the article. I'm working on a few ideas; you can view my progress here. Feel free to leave suggestions or comments on my talk page. Appreciate the work you've done on Jack Sparrow, by the way. Hopefully we can make Batman's Characterization section more like the one on that page. WesleyDodds 08:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fans might like Bale better, but if we were to have a picture of another Batman actor, it'd most definitely have to be Adam West. WesleyDodds 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer GA review
Hey there. If you're not too busy then would you kindly review the Silver Surfer article? In a couple of days, I'm going away on vacation and hence I will not be available to address any concerns or carry out any recommendations and hence I will have to simply remove my nomination for the article. Zuracech lordum 17:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking your time to review the article. Zuracech lordum 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sections based on WP:AVTRIVIA
I noticed that you completely wiped out the Trivia sections of a couple of Pixar films, based on WP:AVTRIVIA. Since the sections were just tagged this month, and the guidelines (and the tag) encourage moving trivia items into the article proper, I view the blanking as a sort of vandalism. I'm sure you mean well, but the first thing to try doing is moving trivia into the article. If it's contentious, tag the item with the FACT tag. Wholesale blanking is using a firehose to douse a candle. ;) -- David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest just dumping the trivia on the talk page of the respective article with a note to integrate whenever possible. I've done this on a few occasions, and there hasn't been any backlash to copy the trivia back into the article. Amusingly enough, on a couple of occasions, anonymous editors add trivia to the exported trivia section on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Please do so, Alientraveller. That way the content isn't vaporized. ;) David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 14:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Not sure what you meant in the comment about findign faults in production, but thanks. ThuranX 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaws
Dear Alientraveller, as I have already said to JPS, it is absolutely heartbreaking to see your removal of my efforts to Jaws. If you look at my User page and contributions, I have spent a LOT of time putting casts into attractive and easy-to-read tables. I am a professional Art Director and Magazine Publisher, and have some knowledge of preparing an attractive presentation. My format is as follows (example only)

No one has complained before, and I hope you will give it some consideration as it is meant for a quick scan more than anything. Where I think it might not work is on the page Empire Falls. However I was thinking of undoing that. Where i think it works well, as and example, is here and here.

A lot of work went into this by me, and even the slight colour coding in boxes is subtle. I realisze it is in the eyes of the beholder, but I hope you will reconsider. Best wishes.-- Rob NS  18:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alientraveller, you might like to see my explanations to RobNS on his talk page. The JPS talk to me  23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK both of you, I'm not really that upset, more a case of severe disappointment. I will abide by the rules. Best wishes to you both.-- Rob NS  23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Namesake
What's the potential name issue? I don't have a monopoly on my own handle. :) I'm putting together headlines for G.I. Joe on my future articles subpage, but Variety is acting up... is the site loading slowly for you?  Not sure if it's only on my end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't fight with the troll through edit summaries. It doesn't do any good. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Jackie Chan GAC
Hello, with regards to your comments on the talk page of Jackie Chan, I've made the changes you suggested. I also added a paragraph of criticism in the Image and Celebrity Status section, based on film reviews from the Cream of the Crop of Rotten Tomatoes. Feel free to have a second look, thanks.--Kylohk 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Malakand
Me again, since you GA approved the above article, I wonder if you had any points you might want to make on its FAC? SGGH speak! 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

t
the source is MORE than reliable. He is confirmed to be in the movie i provided a source so leave it alone.TheManWhoLaughs 17:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HE IS IN THE MOVIE! that website has never been wrong. They report only facts. You change it again and im reporting you.TheManWhoLaughs 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want guy? you want a pic of him standing next to ironman giving the thumbs up? bc that isnt available. He is confirmed to be in the movie. Just let it go. Im asking you nicely.TheManWhoLaughs 18:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ratatoiulle context
regarding Bernard Loiseau, I'm guessing the context is that this guy who died after losing a star is similar to Chef Gusteau who died after losing HIS first star (Gusteau's lost a 2nd star when Gusteau actually died). It's related by plotline; the question is whether Pixar officially used Louseau as inspiration or not - the similarities are certainly there. SpikeJones 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly does qualify as OR without some sort of citation. Just glanced at Loiseau's article and there are some strong similarities between him and Gusteau. Would be interesting to see if there was any basis on this from Pixar. Similar to how some people had posted about Maurice Tillet vs Shrek (character) without having any particular proof (I removed linkages a while back). SpikeJones 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling references
You may wish to see and participate in Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11. –Pomte 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
I don't mind the casting too much. I wonder what capacity Scarecrow would have in TDK -- his specialty seemed to be the gases, so it would be a nice transition to give the Joker laughing gas and have some really demented-looking victims. As for Samuel L. Jackson, I'm not entirely sure. I'm fine with the Ultimate version of Nick Fury, but Jackson didn't impress me as Mace Windu. Someone like D.B. Woodside would capture the look better, but I can't think of a similar-looking actor who would be better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orca (Jaws boat)
What do you reckon? I've suggested to its creator that inline citations might save the article. The JPS talk to me  12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy
Thanks for providing a clear rationale for removing The Dark Knight rumor. The first comment I saw from you, "you people are so gullible," read as simply aggressive, not reasoned (since the evidence, if you look at it, is very convincing; for one thing, any diehard Murphy obsessive can tell you it's him in the photos just by looking at his posture). But I now understand why you removed it, so thanks for giving the link to the relevant style guide pages. BTW, I didn't add the rumor; I just got sick of people adding it badly, so I refined it instead of removing it like I had in the past.Melty girl 21:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scientology vs. Nazis
Eh, I doubt he'd give up production. I think at worse, he'd be forced to film in a neighboring country, or on the backlot in Hollywood (leaning more toward the neighboring country).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing
Thank you for taking a look at Dirty Dancing and leaving comments on the talkpage. I believe that I have addressed them all... If you have any other concerns, please let me know! :) --Elonka 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiya, just a gentle ping to see if you'd had a chance to take another look? I know you've worked on lot of GA/FA articles, so I'm sure you understand that I'm eager for feedback. :) --Elonka 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. :)  If you have any other concerns, please let me know. :) --Elonka 19:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! (Elonka does the happy dance)  :) --Elonka 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers_%28fiction%29
Why do you put comic book info into the film section?--Patrick 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello Alientraveller, looking through your contributions I see that you're a fantastic editor with a strong knowledge of the project's policies. I was wondering if you might be willing to become one of Wikipedia's administrators? If you are interested, I'd be more than happy to nominate you for the position. WjBscribe 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem - sometimes even those who primarily write content find the tools helpful (e.g. Lord Emsworth) and the content that goes on the mainpage can only really be edited by admins - we need skilled writers for that. But I can understand you wishing to focus on article writing - something at which your skill is undeniable. As to corruption, well I don't think that's inevitable (at least I hope not). My offer stands should you ever change your mind in future. Best wishes, WjBscribe 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Hey,

I removed that reference from the Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader article because the link to the interview doesn't work anymore; it just goes to the Infuze (or whatever it's called) home page, not to any specific article or interview. The statement needs a ref, but it needs a functioning ref. :-P

Can I go ahead and add it back?

Also btw, if you undo something besides vandalism (which mine wasn't), you are supposed to provide a rationale in the edit summary.

Thanks! --NetherlandishYankee 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've fixed the ref. Perfect! Thanks.

--NetherlandishYankee 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

X-Men 3
Hi, just wanted to explain why I made the edit which you reversed.

It now reads: Ken Leung as Kid Omega: Has porcupine-like spines he can extend or retract at will. Some comics fans (not to mention the filmmakers themselves) take exception to the name, noting his similarity to the comics character Quill; however, the official cast credits read "Kid Omega". Furthermore, the director and writers confirm that the character is Quill, not Kid Omega. Screenwriter Zak Penn says "...this was a screwup, pure and simple, albeit one that is never mentioned anywhere in the movie but the credits." [1] but, WE HAVE TO BE ACCURATE TO (the mistakes in) THE CREDITS, don't we? Which reminds me: does anyone know how to change "starring" to "staring" in the upper right hand corner's info box? The credits say "staring", and WE HAVE TO BE ACCURATE TO (the mistakes in) THE CREDITS.

I don't think the part about being accurate to the credits and the bit about how to change starring to staring is relevant to any article. Surely this should be in the talk page, not the article itself. Jamesb1 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's there because of continued reverts by fans, often young ones, who don't read the Talk page and don't understand the nature of encyclopedia writing.


 * My question: Is http://www.thexverse.com/ an official Fox site, or a fan site? --Tenebrae 18:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me &mdash; and while I'm here, allow me to offer my compliments on your WPC edits overall. When I see your name on the history page, I personally very assured that a good edit has been made. It's good to work with you. --Tenebrae 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie reviews
Check this out. If you go to Google and type movie: , like movie:batman begins, Google provides an list of reviews for you. I don't think it's compiled immediately, as I tried Transformers, but it could be a good link to go with RT and Metacritic instead of individual reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

More than meets the eye
Thought you might make use of this: C.G.I. ROBOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, apologies... when I saw I had a comment yesterday, I only looked at Blofeld's comment then closed out. It seems that "Fan reaction" would be the best way to go, but obviously the sources should be pretty attributable.  The links that you provided don't seem that strong to me, and it may be best to hold off on such a section until the film has been around long enough for people to examine it after the hype. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, his own reaction would be fine, but your URL pointed me to the user comments below his entry, throwing me off about what you wanted to report. You can quote Simon Furman, then, that's fine.  What about this?  Any attribution behind it?  It just seems like it could be questioned in a FAC as just another fan thing like Casino Royale suffered. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, reading the Critical reaction section more closely, it does strike me that it's a little heavy on the praise in the first paragraph. The large chunk of the paragraph reads like comments scattered all over a movie advertisement in the newspaper. It doesn't seem to read very neutrally. I recall reading a couple of reviews that indicated while the special effects were tiresome and went on for too long -- maybe that can be intertwined to balance it? Hope the fanboy in you isn't subconsciously hyping yourself and Wikipedia readers up for a good cinematic experience. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any valid criticism about the film's excess product placement or the usage of specifically GM vehicles for the "good" Transformers? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: The Best Special Effects Ever? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: Ratcheting Up Hard Body Surfaces (just trying to provide headlines that you may not usually find through SHH and such) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That works. We used the same source for tracking numbers for Spider-Man 3. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A stunning transformation -- found this in my RSS feeds just now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I think I'm gonna abandon season one for now, my next episode will be A Fish Called Selma, and me and Scorpion are going to do the Who Short Burns episodes. Then I think Deep Space Homer, 22 Short Films, Cartridge Family, and so on, all the main ones.

And I'm seeing Simpsons Movie first, on the 27th, 26th if I can pull it. And then Transformers as early as possible, so probably the Saturday, the 28th. But I really can't wait for either of them. Gran2 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really related directedly to this, but to TSM. Thanks to this http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/07/breathe_a_sigh_of_relief_the_s.html it would now be possible to create the beginnings of a "Themes" section on the page. But it wouldn't be that long, so is it worth it? Gran2 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping that they would bring out a book with the film, like the Complete Guide to Our Favourite Family books for the episodes. Because that wold have all of the cult refs in it. I'm thinking that the best bet will be the DVD commentary tracks, but that will be ages. Also, seeing just how brilliant the Transformers page is, when TSM comes out, can I leave the reception section in your control? I mean, I could do it, but you're better at collating reviews than me. Gran2 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well all right, I'll do it, I don't mind either way. Gran2 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Léonce Perret
Hi! I proposed this article to the "Good Article Candidates" but it seems that somebody took it off from the listing. You wrote something that I didn't really get on the discussion page. Did I forget something? Ajor 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Willis
Hey, how's it going? I had a question about a paragraph you removed from the intro of Bruce Willis, claiming that it followed recentism. Could you explain why it does follow that because I use a similar paragraph on several other articles. I thought it would be important to detail upcoming roles, his most recent role, and then what his next upcoming role would be (I just hadn't added that yet). I keep up to date on these to make sure they are updated. If you know something that I overlooked, could you please let me know? Thanks and keep up the good work. The Transformers article is looking great. --Nehrams2020 18:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers plot
Okay, I added some of the stuff you left out of the plot summary that are pretty integral (i.e. which bots are destroyed) but I made it a lot more condensed this time, so it didn't increase the length of the summary much at all. Check it out and lemme know what ya think? --ScreenwriterJeb


 * What's going on? I noticed that apparently you've already been spoiled the fate of many of the transformers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that really sucks, sorry that happened. What do you need me to do exactly?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look over it, with a more detailed eye than I did before. Before I was merely making sure it was accurate. I'll try and go through to see if there is some extraneous information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)


 * Well, it started out with about 1,013 words, and I've now trimmed it to 528 words. It's is a true "summary" of the plot, in that there are hardly any "details".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless it was an important death, I wouldn't think so. I mean, since you already knows who dies, you should know there was only one important death in that film and it's mentioned in the plot. All the others happened quick and on little side battles.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, the article's true size is closer to 24 kb. Since readable prose excludes pictures, tables, lists, references, etc, the only thing that is measured is the actual paragraphs in the article. The cast is a "list" per say, and even if you included the three or so sentences with each name, you're looking at just over 30 kb (if that). You're no where near 60 kb.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Still want these headlines? :-D —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's hard to explain a lot when you don't want to ruin it for others (you namely). I don't recall in the movie that he said anything to the point that made me think he was aware of what was happening to him. I think, like the rest, he just hated humans for being primative and "lesser" than his race. There are others that feel the same way, and when you get to finally see the movie you'll understand what I'm talking about in that regard. As for Megs, I think he was just PO'd in general, and the plot of the movie suggests he planned to kill all humans when he arrived anyway.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Future articles
Thanks for the fix with The Witches, I just threw that on after I was going through headlines for Pan's Labyrinth for another editor. Is it screwed up below The Witches, though? I see "Template:Cite news" and "Template:Cite web" instead of the full references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of News Alerts for Transformers articles and can dump relevant headlines your way like I did with Pan's Labyrinth today. Would you want that, or do you feel that the article is detailed enough? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, just wanted to check. I try to purge my pile of film headlines in Gmail every once in a while.  I'm still waiting to see Transformers myself -- will see Live Free or Die Hard today then Ratatouille on Tuesday.  Hopefully, the robot film will be captioned sometime next week.  It's a good feeling to work on future film articles because a lot of a movie's design can make sense to you.  There is the risk of spoilers, though, as it looks like you found out today.  (I've been spoiled in some ways in watching the article, but I try to push the details to the back of my head, hoping not to remember them when I'm finally sitting in front of the film.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park films
It's not really that important to me. If I get the DVDs and there's something in the special features, then I'll put that on there, but Good is good enough for now, for me. ColdFusion650 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I ever get bored, I'll do my Calculus homework. ColdFusion650 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on Jurassic Park III. Can you take a look at it and see if it's ready for GA? There's still the perennial Production problem (triple alliteration, double score), but I don't know if it's enough. ColdFusion650 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers & Pearl Harbor
I just saw Transformers today and enjoyed it quite a bit. I looked through the article and didn't see any mention of this, but was going to run it by you first to see if you had already stumbled on this. The link shows that Bay used the same shot of an aircraft carrier from Pearl Harbor to include in the film. The source is a blog, and I don't know if it is said anywhere else, unless you also count this as reliable, even though it just regurgitated the same information. If you think that it is notable, it would probably work well in the filming section. If not, just wanted to run it by you as you've spent a lot of time on the article. --Nehrams2020 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

E.T.
Most likely. :) Johnleemk | Talk 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the rings: The return of the king
Why can't it be also in the first sentence? The mention of the awards? TheBlazikenMaster 08:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, because it's best known for the Academy awards. TheBlazikenMaster 08:56, 10 July 2007

(UTC)

The Dark Knight

 * Thank you for coming to a reasonable compromise. I left a similar message on the talk page, but I just wanted to leave one hear in case you didn't see it. If I unintentionally offended you I sincerely apologize and hope we can be friends in the future at wikipedia. annoynmous 11:59, 10 July UTC)