User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/December

Reception table on TCM
Just letting you know that I wasn't the one that made the reception table; it was already there, and I was merely updating it. :-) What do you mean by the reception is not valid—because it's a 20 year old movie?  Thanks.  -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. So do you think Child's Play (film series) should have that. I added it (I think) and it just looks so pitiful there by itself.  I'm thinking about removing it.  I'm also working on Hannibal Lecter table-- someone jammed ALL the info in one table.  I'm working on making the box office table, and I it does have a good amount of scores on Rotten Tomatoes (except the first two), haven't check Metacritic, or Yahoo Movies.. I'll cross that bridge when I get there, but if it doesn't I want add that table.  And box office performance should be just box office?  Also The Exorcist has a critical reception table, should it disappear too? -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TV.com
No wonder! Because yesterday I read that a new episode on Law and Order: SVU would be called "Damned" so I added it (along with some others) and then today it says "Confidential". What is reconmended, TVguide.com? Oh I just spent 30 mins adding "new episodes" to CSI. I've reverted it back. I will revert my Law and Order: SVU edits also, as always thanks for letting me know. -- Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body article
I know that I always come to you about these type of things, but you are the main one who convinced me that a Cast and Casting section are not needed at the same time. That is what I did with the Jennifer's Body article, but now an editor objects. I already took this matter to a relevant WikiProject talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films), but I feel that it is best if you are included in this discussion: Talk:Jennifer's Body. Flyer22 (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

 * Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.


 * WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.


 * Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."


 * However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film) and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film). Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * Would you mind taking part in these "Surveys"?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Hello
I added a new topic about italicized article titles to the Film Project discussion page, but for some reason it's not showing, even though if you go to and move to the bottom, you can see it there. Do you have any idea how to report a glitch like this? Thanks! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone left a ref tag open ~ ς ح   д r   خ є  ~ 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast/Crew in navboxes
Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 18:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, and James Cameron's Avatar
Having fun today? If not, I wish you all the best. There is nothing too good on television right now here in Pensacola, Florida, and today has been kind of so/so for me.

Also, have you seen Avatar yet? I was going to see it with my mom last Friday, but there was a change of plans (details are at my talk page). I really want to see it, though, and seeing it would also help me to properly judge on whether or not the Avatar (2009 film) article's plot section really should be limited at 700 words.

The holidays are always so/so for me these days. I should go see Avatar today to help cheer me up, but I'm not sure. If I go tonight, I might be going alone. Though the movie theatre will be full of people, it might be better experienced with a friend or relative. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, I just saw the film. It really is good, and quite the epic. I have to agree with The Christian Post about it partly being reminiscent of Braveheart. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas
You too! Was planning to message you soon, feels like we've not chatted in a while. Get up to anything nice this Christmas? I managed to avoid the boredom of extended family this year, so just had a nice day at home watching films with my mum.

Have kind of a backlog of things to chat to you about... watched Terminator season 2 and have mixed feelings about it. Also saw Paranormal Activity finally; it's definitely the scariest film I've seen in years but it doesn't live up to the hype. Any updates from your end? :)    Paul    730  21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's crap that you had to work on Christmas day. Was it ok, or did that pretty much ruin your day?
 * Season 2 of Terminator is weird. If the show had lasted a few more seasons, it would have been fine.  However, because it didn't and there was so much unfilled potential, it becomes frustrating to watch episodes which are basically filler.  The season feels very slow-paced, and there's a lot of episodes which detract from the main story.  They're good episodes, just not neccessary.  After seeing the amazing (and soul-destroying) cliffhanger finale, you wish the writers had used the few episodes they did have a little more efficiently.  I'm not a fan of this American 22-episodes-a-season format... it's just too decompressed.  It'd be more satisfying to have two 12-episode seasons a year than one dragged-out one.  That said, the season is still great and the last few episodes are amazing.  There's also an episode where Sarah is visited by Kyle (he's just a hallucination) which had me close to tears.
 * A great film I reccomend is Doghouse. It's a hilarious Shaun rip-off where a bunch of sexist lad characters fight female zombies.  It's totally misogynistic and disgusting, but in a funny way. :D  Plus it's a rare example of a horror film with a positive gay character in it, which scores extra points with me.
 * I remember seeing Fright Night on TV a few years ago and finding it quite funny. The Shining is obviously cool, I'm surprised you don't already own it.  That's really cool about the Jason poster (the poster is probably the best thing about the movie).  Who got you that, your girlfriend?     Paul    730  01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It definitely pisses me off that the writers left Terminator on a cliffhanger when cancellation was likely, if not inevitable. Most of the themes/emotional arcs are partially resolved, but the plot itself opens up a whole new can of worms at the last minute.  I hope (but don't expect) that they make some direct-to-DVD movie that can tie things up.  The fanbase is obviously there, it would be a waste not to.
 * Doghouse is nowhere near as good as Shaun but it is funny. I liked it, but a lot of people don't.  Oh, I watched Star Trek tonight (got it for my mum for her xmas - she's a Trekkie).  I enjoyed it a lot more than I was expecting.  I've always perceived ST as being dry and science-y but it was surprisingly warm and human.  Chekov was probably my favourite character, partly because of my affection for that actor and partly because of his funny accent.  I liked Scotty as well, for obvious reasons.  I'm glad to have some understanding of the ST universe now, though I probably won't check out the old series.
 * I like The Shining but it's not a personal favourite. I remember finding Fright Night very strange, but it was too long ago for me to remember why.  I'd love a Halloween poster.  I take it you're going to frame it?    Paul    730  22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry for the late reply. I'm just bitter about the whole thing to be honest. I think it's ridiculous that a popular, well-written show based on an iconic film series can't survive in some form.  It just shows how backwards television is nowadays.
 * I'm not a huge Stephen King fan (nothing against him). I love the original Carrie, I saw that when was I a kid and it broke my heart.
 * Oh, I would never pay that much for a poster. Just a cheap reprint of the image would do me, I have no interest in collectibles.  Don't you have all the Evil Dead posters as well?     Paul    730  00:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of Stephen King books or films. No reason, just never really given him much thought.  I haven't even read any of his books, I'm not a big novel reader.  I'm currently reading Darkly Dreaming Dexter but I prefer the TV show big time.
 * I'm not that interested in collectableness. I buy all my comics as trade paperbacks (which are reprints are therefore worthless) just because I prefer that format.  I have some original comics (Buffy, Halloween) but that's just because I love the series too much to wait.  If I was buying a poster, it wouldn't matter to me how rare or valuable it is, I'd just want the image.
 * My ideal Evil Dead poster would be something with this image, I prefer that to the actual theactrical poster. The AoD poster is amazing though.  I love the Halloween theactical poster, but I also love the banister image.  Is it the black and white version you have?     Paul    730  23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Halloween II infobox
Bignole I strongly disagree with including the UK release date in the infobox, the guidelines are clear "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." The production companies are in the US. The re-release doesn't fit the criteria to be mentioned in the infobox either, especially when there are two release dates there, so which country was it re-released at? :-\ Also we are supposed to use the undefined metaformating.

However, the rest of the release dates can be mentioned in the release section. I've also removed the 2009 American, per WP:EGG. :) --  Mike   Allen   03:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But how is the UK release relevant? Did it make a lot at the box office, or because it was release two months later?  I'm just trying to figure this out, because as you have pointed out (and from what I've learned yesterday) these "guidelines" can be screwed, as anybody can edit what they want without considering gaining a consensus on it (and potentially "fool" gullible newbies like me).  Also I think a lot are simply out-dated.  "Use undefined for the earliest."  Thank you, I must have skipped that part.  I've just recently learned to use the startdate template, because I thought it was logical to just write it out. lol --  Mike   Allen   04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's just a guideline, but I don't like to be guided in the wrong direction. :) Also about the startdate, I asked this same question and Erik pointed me to: Template:Infobox film. So theoretically it's for technical reasons. --  Mike   Allen   05:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallville Episodes
I've put it so that the last episode showing is "Pandora". I don't know what you're trying to do, put you keep on putting "Absolute Justice" at the top and above the table of episodes. TH43 (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)