User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/October

The CW
The Smallville season 9 summery is perfect. I was just wondering if you follow TV ratings closely or if you know anything about The CW's CEO, Dawn Ostroff (something like that). I've heard that The CW could close down by the end of the 2010-2011 season if the ratings for the shows do not improve. This would effect Smallville and weather or not it will get picked up for a tenth and a potential eleventh season. Just wondering and would like to hear your thoughts. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The network is defently a low end network. In my opinion, the reason why their shows do not tend to do well, is because of the extremely low advertising. And as for profit, there has to be a fairly good amount of profit off of their better rated shows such as Smallville, Supernatural, and The Vampire Diaries.

Your reason to why Smallville was moved to Fridays seems pretty good. I thought it was a great idea. However, the ratings plummited, and it seems to be a really bad idea. Moving to Wed. would probably be a good idea ratings wise, but like you said, Smallville did out perform any other show in the Friday 8PM timeslot. I think they should look into an ABC Family show Kyle XY. Putting that after Smallville on Firdays would only be profitable. On Thursdays, they have a "horror themed night", on Friday, they have a "sci-fi themed night". What do you think of that?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Jason
Whose arguing? You and 10,000 other Wiki editors think WP:V = Yay I get to a be a jerk and reject peoples edits - and i wasnt the editor that added the information without a source.. i just stumbled along and decided to /help/ (cue) 67.177.4.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallville (season 4)
You have been involved in edit wars on this article and several other Smallville articles, and the source you are inserting seems to fail WP:RS be subject to questioning per WP:ELMAYBE. Either way, it's not OK to edit war over such a disagreement. You should know that you are blockable at this point for WP:EW. Please don't continue the edit wars. Toddst1 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Elm Street
So what do you think of the new Nightmare trailer? I'm impressed, but with some reservations. First of all, I felt sorry for Freddy at the start... good thing? Is portraying him as a victim the right way to go? My first reaction was "urgh, not another killer with a sobstory", but I actually think it could be interesting approach. When you think about it, Freddy always was a victim. I don't believe in the death sentence, even for killers and paedos, so the parents of Elm Street were kind of wrong to do what they did. Showing Freddy as a scared human being who was murdered might add weight to his actions later on, I'm not sure. My other worry is the straight remake of scenes from the first film, namely the tub scene and Tina's death. That didn't work in the Halloween remake, if I want to see scenes from the first film, I'd rather watch the first film. Hopefully these are just brief references, and we don't have to sit through entire regurgitated sequences.

Good things... the nightmare sequences look great and creepy. I loved the imagery of it snowing in an indoors room, what a great idea. Also like the reference to Jennifer from Dream Warriors, burning yourself to stay awake, I hope there are similar references. (I've noticed the ever-ambiguous Thomas Dekker plays a character called Jesse...?) Freddy's burn make-up looked genuinely disturbing instead of a rubber mask, I hope the film keeps it in shadows because it's creepier if you can't see him properly. Overall, the look and feel of the film was great, I'm really excited for it. Freddy's voice was strange though, reminds me of Pamela in Friday the 13th, it felt weird.  Paul    730  19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the bathtub scene in the original, which is why I'm wary of it being redone. If it's just a little homage, fine, but if entire sections of the original are just lifted as in Halloween... not so fine.  I do trust these guys after Friday the 13th; their intepretation of Jason was so perfect that I can have faith that Freddy will be done justice too.  That's why I'm not that worried about the whole "sympathetic Freddy" thing.Yeah, the pool scene reminded me of Freddy's Revenge too, which is great because I like that movie now.
 * What didn't you like about Freddy's look? I'm not actually a big fan of Freddy's usual plasticky look; he was good in the first two movies, then started to look like a rubber mask in Dream Warriors, and was woefully bad in Freddy's Dead, New Nightmare, and FvJ.  In that one still, he did look more like a realistic burn victim and it's fucking creepy as hell.  I'm not keen on his voice either, but maybe that's just cos we're used to Englund.  I don't think it's the sound of his voice so much as the delivery of the lines, but I do hope they alter his voice, to add a bit of supernatural menace.  I think they did that in the earlier movies?     Paul    730  23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know Freddy pretty well and I still felt sorry for him. He was so scared and pitiful in that trailer. :(
 * The second half of Halloween was very reminiscent of the first film, which was a weird jump after the original first half. Many scenes, like the girls walking home, Laurie babysitting the kids, made you feel like you were just watching the original.  Even some of the lines were straight lifts... "See anything you like?" "Was that the bogeyman?" and probably others.  It wasn't bad, just kind of boring and deja vu.  I start to fall asleep during the second half of RZH.
 * I know what you mean... part of me wants to see his face clearly so I can judge it properly, another part would rather it remain in shadow to create mystery. It's creepier if you can't see it properly.  His face looks kind of alien and inhuman, which I like.     Paul    730  21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Lynda's death was replicated near-exactly, the ghost sheet, the same line. And the "stupid walk home" is one of my favourite sequences in the original movie, thank you very much. :P The whole second half just felt like a crap version of the original, it was boring and depressing.  I prefer the Texas and Friday remakes, which have more original characters and material.  Nancy is iconic, but I'm glad to see the Nightmare remake has mostly new characters.  Oh, and classic or not, hearing Scout and Malcolm mangle the bogeyman line was painful.  New dialogue please.  At the risk of sounding insensitive, don't burn victims look kind of alienesque?  I just Googled "burn victim" and it was pretty gross.
 * Btw, I just watched Army of Darkness... what do you think of that movie? Even though I'm a fan, I've always struggled to fully embrace the Evil Dead movies because they're too inconsistant tonally.  Army of Darkness goes way too far with the slapstick, IMO.  A lot of scenes are more cringeworthy than funny.  Also, I find myself wishing there was more substance... Ash could be a really interesting character if Raimi took him seriously for a minute.  In the first movie, he's a real person who cares about his friends, but in AoD he's just a clown.  We never see him mourning Cheryl and Linda.  Evil Dead 2 is much better (and my favourite of the series), but even that can be a little OTT sometimes.  Even though it's horror blasphemy, I wish the later movies had been a little more serious like the first movie, without sacrificing the humour that made them work.     Paul    730  23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact details of the scene are irrelevant, I'm not saying it's shot-for-shot. It's basically the same scene, which is boring and redundant because we've already seen that scene done perfectly.  I'm all for re-imagining the story but Zombie got lazy after Michael escaped Smith's Grove.  The pool scene I did actually like, but the whole sequence of Michael smashing up the house looking for Laurie was mindnumbing.
 * ED2 seems to be the general favourite, but when I first saw it I hated it. Expecting a straight continuation of the first movie, I felt the shift in tone was too extreme.  I'm not really a fan of Raimi's cartoony direction sometimes, it annoyed me in Spider-Man and it annoyed me in ED2.  I can't say I noticed it in the first movie... that film was OTT, but in a horrific way rather than a humorous one.  You were thinking "holy shit" rather than laughing.  I did grow to love ED2 in time, not least because it's the first time Ash is properly realised.  I don't think any of the films really mesh well tonally, but at least the first two are both horror movies and keep some continuity with the deadites.  The deadites suck in AoD.     Paul    730  00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can re-imagine the story and villain of Halloween without redoing the specific scenes. Nothing interesting happens in the second half of RZH, it's the same shit we've seen before with none of the style. What's worse is the first half is original material (flawed material, but still), which emphasises the deja vu of the second half.  It's like you're watching a new film... then suddenly you're not.  It's clunky.  You only need to redo scenes if the original needs improved (whether it's just dated or was flawed to begin with).  Halloween is perfect, so if you're going to remake it, you should do something different.  I would have been fine if it was all-new characters like Texas...
 * Just silly little moments that we've discussed before... the pumpkin bomb = skeleton scene, the operating room scene in 2, the Raindrops scene. Cheesy little scenes that just make me cringe.  I've not seen Darkman... I'm vaguely familiar with him and I know he has a crossover comic with Ash (who doesnt...).     Paul    730  01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously nothing is "perfect" but Halloween is as close to perfect as it can be, and that's not "biased obsession". I'm perfectly willing to point out the flaws in things if I think they're there.  Please tell me what "flaws" Zombie's film points out the original.  If you're talking about Michael being mysterious and nothing being explained, I've explained at length why that's not a flaw.
 * I don't know, Raimi just has a cheesy quality to his direction that doesn't always appeal to me. It's good in moderation, but sometimes goes too far.  No, I love the upside-down kiss, I was referring to the Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head scene, where Peter minces about New York with a smug look on his face.  I just want to slap him.  I might check out Darkman sometime.    Paul    730  18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael is an enigmatic evil being who cannot die... who cares how he can drive a car? You're applying human logic to a character who's not human.  I'm going to refer you to Halloween god Stef Hutchinson:
 * "The main problem I have with the sequels – even though I can watch them all and have a good time – is that they lock The Shape down with specifics. That, to me, is a crime. We’re in this horrible era at the moment where everybody is obsessed with back-story and explanations. I think it’s a direct result of message boards, to be honest. And for me, it’s crippling to the horror genre. If I want solid explanations, I’ll watch science fiction movies. Let me give you an example: there’s the famous line in the original film, when we become informed that The Shape can’t drive a car, but “He was doing very well last night! Maybe somebody around here gave him lessons!” Now, I’ve always seen that as sarcasm on Loomis’ part. Nothing more than that. After all, we’re talking about ‘pure evil’ here, so given the fact that he later absorbs six bullets and walks away, surely it’s not a stretch at all to imagine he just ‘knows’ how to drive a car. No great leap of logic there. Similarly it’s almost a comment to the audience – if you care about these sorts of details, then this isn’t for you. This is a scare machine, pure and simple, and that line facilitates the transport of ‘pure evil’ from A to B. That’s great, economical screenwriting. Now, I’ve read endless discussions about how he can drive. Who gives a shit? That’s not the story – that’s just taking away from it. Do we really need to imagine Doctor Wynn or whoever demonstrating a three-point-turn to a stony-faced learner driver in the grounds of Smith’s Grove?"
 * And honestly... his jumpsuit being clean is a "flaw"? That's the great downfall of Halloween that Rob Zombie felt the need to rectify?  It's completely irrelevant, you barely even see his jumpsuit clearly.  As for Smith's Grove, that's easily explainable... it was minimal security facility, which Loomis warned against, and Michael lured the staff into a false sense of security with his comatose behaviour.  The TV version of the film has a scene where they describe how Michael broke the glass in his door window with his bare hands and escaped.  Bascially, yes, the security is that lax, they made a point about it in the film.  Annie doesn't tell her father about Michael because she's not paying any attention to this potential stalker... who she assumes is a guy from school anyway.  Haddonfield is a small town where people don't lock their doors, it never occurs to anyone that there might be danger out there, that's a huge theme in the film.  I don't think the Wallaces and Doyles are gone that long, the Orange Grove scenes only take place in the time span of a few hours IIRC.  Why would they need to call and check on them?
 * If these are the worst flaws you can find in the movie, then it must be pretty close to perfect. Frankly, even I can pick bigger holes than that... first of all, there's a timing error in the movie; we see Michael in his mask when Tommy leaves school.  But later in the evening, the alarms in the hardware store are still going off after Michael robbed it.  Did the alarms go off continually for 3 or 4 hours?  Also, what happened to Michael's station wagon?  He parks it on Orange Grove, but later Loomis sees it from the Myers house.  Did Michael take the time to move the car right in front of Loomis, and how did Loomis not see his car when he was standing outside the house for hours?  There are various other continuity errors and goofs thoughout the film (it's October but all the trees are green?) but these happen in all movies.  Frankly, I like noticing all these little mistakes, they add character to the film and don't affect the story one bit.  I don't think of them as imperfections, they're just part of the movie.  Like Stef said in that above quote, if these things detract from your enjoyment, you're missing the point big time.
 * Necessary or not, it makes me want to strangle Peter. It's just so annoying.  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on Nightdance. :) Even though you'll probably bash it, ya big hater!    Paul    730  20:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm chocking up every so-called problem up to "he's evil", it's that you keep trying to pin down and explain a character who is not meant to be explained. Please tell me why Michael's ability to drive actually matters.  If you want explanation, go watch The Curse of Michael Myers, they explain the driving thing very nicely in that movie. :P They managed to keep him locked up for 15 years because Michael let them.  He acted harmless and comatose because he was waiting for his time to strike.  Why did he wait so long?  What was it about 1978 that set him off?  These are mysteries that don't need answers.  You want the film to outright explain Michael's every action in logical and human terms.  I don't.  As for why I keep quoting Hutchinson, it's because he has similar opinions about the Halloween films as me and articulates them better than I can.  I respect the guy and I think he understands Michael Myers better than anyone.
 * Oh, sorry, I misread that there. Well, from a writing perspective, I guess it's because Brackett needs to be the Scully, and Laurie making claims about a masked stalker would validate Loomis' claims.  In-universe, it's probably just because Laurie is shy and doesn't want to cause trouble.  She's pretty awkward around Brackett, she might be too scared to say anything, especially since her friends already dismissed her.
 * Annie picks Laurie up at 6:30, and Halloween II starts somewhere between 9 and 10, IIRC. That's like three hours, it certainly wasn't the middle of the night.  You know what, how do you know they didn't call and it just wasn't shown?  Or maybe they called and it was engaged because the girls were using the phone?  It's such an irrelevant point, and so easily fanwanked.
 * Loomis had a permit for the gun and hadn't done anything wrong. Brackett is clearly uncomfortable with it (and even shouts at him in HII) but what was he supposed to do, take it off him?  Great, you just ruined the end of your movie and killed Laurie. ;) You're just making up "problems" for the sake of, I haven't even thought about half this stuff.
 * Oh, I can definitely claim the film is close-to-perfect. And Rob Zombie rubbing a bit of dirt on Michael's jumpsuit sure as hell didn't improve it.  I'd say Nightdances only flaws are the slow pace (which isn't really a flaw, but it might take a while to get into it) and it's a little hard to keep track of all the characters.  You'll probably have to read it more than once to really appreciate it, I did.     Paul    730  00:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Break
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Frankly, I don't care why he waited 15 years or went back to Haddonfield. You're looking for logic in the actions of a being who embodies evil and insanity. What you consider plot holes I consider part of the character's mystique. He doesn't need to make sense.

I just watched Dream Child (scraping the barrel for my Freddy-fix)... wow, that movie doesn't get any better after repeat viewings, does it? Thing is, I'm not sure exactly what I don't like about it. It's a strange movie.  Paul    730  03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I enjoy rewatching the Nightmare movies. In fact, I appreciate Freddy's Dead, Dream Warriors, and Dream Master a lot more after my recent viewings... enjoyed them more than usual for some reason.  For slasher movies, the series is really pretty deep, even the crappier ones.  I rewatched A New Blood the other night and was rather bored... best Jason aside, it's not one of the better Fridays.  Aw, Manhattan is such an underdog, I kind of like it even though it is shit.  What don't you like about it?  Hodder is a good Jason, but Mears is much better.  He's the Daniel Craig of Jasons.  Oh, and V and X are good Fridays, I don't care what anyone says.  You're so cliché, hating on V. :P
 * No, never seen any of the Phantasms. I'm vaguely aware of them though, any good?     Paul    730  04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Jason teleporting is ridiculous in Manhattan. You have Jason chase a man into a building, then inexplicably appear inside the building on the other side.  I'm all for suspension of disbelief but that was insulting.  Maybe Jason removed the anchor?  But then you have the question of why he bothered getting on the Lazurus at all.  The whole premise of the film is convoluted.  Ah... the infamous ending.  I believe the writer/director wanted to bookend the series by reverting Jason back to a child, which is a nice idea in theory.  I guess he was supposed to be mutated by the toxic waste or something.  Undeformed Jason is just bad research.
 * The whole Rennie thing has been retroactively explained in Nightmare Warriors. She's an "empath", which means she can feel the emotions around her and it alters her perception of reality.  The comic doesn't address Manhattan directly, but my guess is, when she was in the lake as a child, she sensed Jason's psychic presence and it made her see him.  Jason himself was never physically there, but his spirit is connected to the lake.  Her visions as an adult were her sensing Jason's actual presence on the boat and his emotions; Jason sees himself as an innocent child, so that's how Rennie saw him.  The scene in the sewer was just another vision.  Jason was scared and in pain because of the toxic waste, and that emotion was so strong it made Rennie see him the way he felt; a helpless child.  In reality, Jason was just burned and flushed out into the ocean.  That's how I interpret it anyway.  (I'm not defending the movie, as it stands, it's an incoherent mess.  But it's a nice retcon.)  Oh, I like Scott Reeves as Sean... he's hot.  Wasn't he some big soap star in America?
 * It's not totally like HIII because it's still in continuity with the other movies and has a recurring character. I don't hate the lack of Jason, because I don't think Jason is necessarily crucial to the series.  He wasn't the killer in the first movie, and wasn't even fully realised until the third movie.  The movie is still about him to an extent, so the fact that he doesn't physically appear doesn't bother me.  I like that they experimented, even though I'm glad they went back to Jason soon afterwards.  The killer is a vengeful parent, which fits the themes of the series, so even though it wasn't executed that great I don't find it nearly as offensive as some people.  Ignoring the fanboy complaint of "OMG where's Jason!!??", the movie isn't much better or worse than any other entry.  In fact, it's probably the last "classic" Friday because Jason Lives changed the style so much (blatant supernatural elements, keeping Jason onscreen for most of the movie).  You know I love Jason X.  Having accepted that the Jasonverse is an OTT comic book world, I have no problem with it going into space.  I love how shamelessly ludicrous the concept is and I think it's a really fun, brainless movie to watch.
 * The only things I know about Phantasm is that it's about an evil wizard. Or something.  And there are weird silvery orbs? What little I've heard hasn't really captured my interest tbh.     Paul    730  14:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "last kids of Crystal Lake" theory is interesting, but It's still OOC for Jason to target those kids specifically, especially since they're nowhere near Crystal Lake itself. Since when does Jason go out of his way to hunt people down like that, that's Freddy and Michael's MO.  The only personal vendettas he's had were against Alice, Tommy, Freddy and Ash... people who hurt him.  It gets especially ridiculous in New York, where Jason ignores people in the street to keep chasing Sean and Rennie.  Why isn't he killing random pedestrians?  Well duh, obviously the toxic waste mixed with the Necronomicon mojo in Jason's body and triggered a bio-mystical age regression process.  Come on Bignole, it's so obvious!
 * Well, Rennie's psychic in the film, her powers just aren't clearly defined. In Nightmare Warriors, she and Tina are best friends, which I thought seemed like a natural relationship.  Also, Rennie views Maggie as a kind of mother figure, the way she does with the female teacher in the movie.  The characters all slot together rather nicely like that.  Soap stars are renowned for wretched acting?  Lol, I guess that rules them out for a Friday the 13th movie then. :P Who gives a shit if Reeves can act, anyway, he's just eye candy.  Of all the faceless boyfriend characters, he and Nick are the hottest.
 * Those trailers looked pretty bad, but I see what you mean about the music.   Paul    730  21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, if anything doesn't make sense, the Necronomicon did it. It got Jason on the boat as well, with it's dark influence.  Thom Matthews is hot, but he's an actual character not window dressing like those other guys.  Padalecki is okay but he spends all his time standing next to Jensen Ackles, who's hotter.
 * The Phantasm movies used to always show on TV at like 2 in the morning over here, so next time one's on I might stay up.    Paul    730  10:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked that it was all-new characters and settings, a fresh take on things. Lisa couldn't have been Lindsey Wallace anyway because it would contradict One Good Scare.  Don't worry, Lindsey's handled very well in that story, Michael doesn't show her any mercy.  Tommy appears in Thirty Years of Terror as a comic book writer who writes stories about Michael Myers (and Thorn and Jamie Lloyd).  His appearance is based on original actor Brian Andrews, so no sexy Paul Rudd action hero this time.  Hutchinson was going to follow up Tommy's story in Mark of Thorn but that story's been cancelled because of DDP's finanical problems.  Hopefull we'll see it someday, I know Hutchinson has the whole Halloween universe mapped out in his head, with about four more stories unwritten.
 * Well, the reason Lisa is afraid of the dark is because Michael locked her in the basement of the Bowell house (did you read Charlie btw?). So she does have a connection to him, it's just not from a previous story.  I love the idea of him latching onto a random girl, it goes back to the first movie, and it's more scary.  Lisa could be any one of us.  I love the sheer sadism of burying alive a girl who's afraid of the dark.  I really liked the characters, I loved how innocent they were.  Usually in horror films you don't care about the victim characters, but Nightdance did a great job of reminding you these are real human beings who don't deserve to die.  Nikki's death, where she thinks about how sorry she is for letting everybody down.  Or Sean, where he just cries "Why are you doing this, we're just kids!"  I thought it was really powerful and had a sensitivity that horror doesn't usually bother with... it's rare to actually feel sorry for the people being killed, for their lives to mean something.  Oh, I really like that Michael killed a kid.  You can't say he's pure evil and then copout with "oh, but he doesn't kill kids".  Just because he's never done it before doesn't mean he wouldn't.  What did you think of Michael's drawings?  That's an unusual character trait they gave him, but I love it.  It provides a really creepy, vague insight into Michael's mind, and the fact he sends his victims pictures has a real calculated, stalkerish vibe to it.  Michael's entire characterisation just felt more intelligent in this story than it did throughout most of the sequels.
 * Did you like Tim Seeley's artwork? Cartoony artwork is often unpopular with people who don't read comics a lot.  They tend to prefer photorealistic stuff, especially with licensed comics.  I really liked the warm, autumn atmosphere he gave to the story.  There's a lot of subtelty in it too... look at the scene at the fairground when Michael watches them from the bushes.  Suddenly the focus shifts very slightly to Nikki and you realise she's his next victim.
 * DDP are dragging their heels with the last issue of First Death of Laurie Strode, I don't know if they'll ever finish it. You should try and find One Good Scare and Thirty Years of Terror online.. they're one-shots so they'll never be collected in a TPB and they're definitely worth reading.  There's also another free downloadable story at the HalloweenComics website, White Ghost, which tells the story of Chris Hastings, the Phelps truck driver who Michael gets his overalls from.  It's not the best story, but it's free and worth reading.     Paul    730  23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should give Charlie another chance, it's actually very interesting. It's more about the mythology of the Halloween universe and how evil works, than a straight story.  I think one of the reasons the characters were sympathetic to me was how obviously young they were.  Often in TV and films, teenagers are just depicted as obnoxious adults, especially in horror films where all they do is drink and fuck.  In Nightdance, the characters are very innocent and still kind of children.  Sean wants to be a big manly hero, but when faced with Michael, he's just a scared little boy.  His death is a brutal scene.  Hutchinson has said that Nightdance is basically a coming-of-age story, it's just unfortunate that Michael doesn't let them come-of-age.  I felt sorry for Nikki as well, I liked how she seemed like the stereotypical "party girl" but was actually quite vulnerable.  I didn't care much about Abbi and Ben, or Marcie, but I did like Ryan.  He took on a kind of Dr. Loomis quality in his hunt for Michael.  I think he and Marcie had enough banter in #1 to establish their relationship.
 * I think one of the favourite things about the story is the recurring theme of fate in the Halloween universe. The way all the different strands seem separate but intertwine naturally across the story.  I like Ryan's question about, if they're just there to be tortured by evil, and they can't escape their fate, then what's the point of existing in the first place?  It's like their lives are just a sick joke.  That's a really relevant thing to ask in a slasher story, where characters are created simply to die.  Again, Nightdance takes horror cliches and executes them with more depth then usual.  How do you think the story stands up to the movie sequels?  A lot of people who read the comics, myself included, think they're better than any of the sequels.  I consider ND the best Halloween after the original.
 * Someone asked the same question as you, about whether Michael is pretending to be a child for Lisa, at the OHMB. Hutchinson replied and said it's supposed to be ambiguous, he's not going to spell it out.  I think it's a bit of both, as you say, he has both childish and adult characteristics.  I don't think he was drawing childish specifically for Lisa, I think he's just kind of a weird manchild in his own head.  Btw, didn't the scene where he puts the mask on Ryan remind you of Resurrection?  It just proved that the idea itself was sound, it was just the horrible execution that made it silly in Resurrection.     Paul    730  00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What problems did Ryan have? I disagree, I think he was a perfectly well-developed character.  He was kind of a B-story, but so was Dr. Loomis in the original Halloween; he spent most of the story standing outside the Myers house doing nothing.  Abby was plot devicey, but I have a feeling she was supposed to be involved in a future story.  Like I said, Hutchinson has had the whole Halloween universe plotted out in advance for years, and upcoming stories are often foreshadowed (for example, excerpts from the unreleased Diary of Judith Myers appear in First Death, two characters from Thirty Years appeared earlier in Autopsis).  The fact that Abby did so little, but ultimately survived, makes her a likely candidate for another story IMO.  Also, at the back of the TPB, there are e-mails from a character called Monica Winters who's never appeared before.  Presumably Hutchinson had plans for her as well.  It's a shame these stories will likely never see print.
 * I love H20 but for totally different reasons than Nightdance. I think ND is more loyal to the original movie in tone and themes.  H20 is more exciting though, because of Laurie.  I like HII but I get really bored during the second act; Random Nurse #3 just doesn't interest me as a character for some reason.  HII is basically a Friday the 13th movie with Michael Myers in it.  The final act is brilliant though, I'll give it that.  I'm sure Hutchinson did "steal" it from Resurrection, but probably more as consistant characterization than lazy theft.  He hates Resurrection.  You liked the decapitation retcon?  Wow, I've never heard anyone say that before.  I think it gets a bad rep, personally (Total Film listed it one of the 100 Dumbest Movie Moments).  It was executed badly (there's no way that was a normal guy in H20, and the nurses exposition is pretty on-the-nose) but it's an in-character action for Michael.  I like to think he knew Laurie would kill the wrong guy, and just wanted to put her through that.  When you compare it to the resurrections in other movies (dog pee anyone?), it's not that bad.  I think people hate it because it ruins the brilliant ending to H20.  (Mind you, there's actually a bit of a conspiracy theory that the whole thing was planned, as there are two slightly different paramedic uniforms, and one of them appears on what's obviously the H20 location.)
 * Btw, you know how I was complaning about the inconsistant tone in Evil Dead? I read a fan theory somewhere that said the increasing slapstick and comedy could be because Ash is losing his sanity; he's just perceiving things to be weird and wacky because he's lost his mind.  I'm a sucker for metaphoric shite, so I officially love that theory. :D     Paul    730  02:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I never gave much thought to Ryan's dislike of small towns. I assume it's just a general "too quiet" creep factor, rather than because of some horrible incident from his past.  It's nothing to do with Haddonfield, he says he grew up in Langdon, the town at the start of H20.  The creepy nature of small towns is explored in White Ghost, and was important in the original film, so it appears to be a bit of a running theme in the series, not something specific to Ryan.
 * The problem with the ending to H20 is that it shits over John Carpenter's original statement. The end of the original Halloween was about how evil is everywhere and will never die, and H20 ends with evil being definitively killed by good.  It was the perfect ending to H20, but not the series in general.  Stef Hutchinson says he likes Resurrection because it does the dirty work necessary for his stories to take place.  Lol, how happy where you when you saw Michael being bitch slapped by Busta Rhymes an hour later?
 * Freddy's resurrections are quite consistant. He usually comes back because the survivors can't stop fearing him.  FvJ was the first film to explicitly touch on that, but it's there in 4 and 5 as well, with Kristen and Alice accidentally bringing him back to life.  Didn't Jason die in Part III?  I always assumed his mask shielded him from the axe somewhat, but some people think he was already supernatural by that point.  Going by current continuity, Mrs. Voorhees resurrected him with the Necronomicon after his drowning, so he was always "undead" throughout II - IV.  That's a retcon, obviously.  Speaking of which, I picked up the latest Nightmare Warriors today.  I wasn't as impressed this time... they hired a fill-in artist, which is always annoying and ruins the consistency.  I'm still enjoying the story, but the art is starting to really drag it down.     Paul    730  05:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 2
I doubt it had anything to do with Marion (Nurse Wynn is from RZH). His knowledge of Michael Myers was because he grew up in Illinois, where Michael is a famous urban legend. Come to think of it, he might have some connection to Haddonfield... his second name is Nichols, and Michael got his original mask from Nichols' Hardware (Mr. Nichols appears in First Death and was the subject of Laurie's bagel joke in RZH). Maybe Mr. Nichols was his uncle or something and he told him about Michael Myers?

"Even pure evil can be defeated, otherwise what's the point of fighting if you can never win?" You just asked the question that fuels five seasons of Angel, and the answer is "In the greater scheme, or the bigger picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win. If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. Because that's all there is."  It's also a question in Nightdance, although the answer is rather less optimistic; evil wins. There's also this lovely exhange in The First Death of Laurie Strode:
 * Marion: "Do you think you can save her?"
 * Loomis: "No. He'll get her someday.  You can see it in the events that have already happened.  The patterns that defy God's plans.  You can see it in the poor girl's eyes-- she's already gone.  Ben Tramer, the boy at school she was attracted to--he died in front of my eyes--that night, he was wearing the same clothes as Michael.  The same mask.  Do you see?  These things go beyond coincidence.  Michael's coming for Laurie to relive Judith's murder--stuck in some brutal moment beyond comprehension--there's a loop of events happening over and over again.  And we can't run from that."
 * Marion: "So... why?"
 * Loomis: "Why do I stay? Maybe I can never save her, but I can at least do everything to ensure that before she passes... before he takes her away she can find herself.  Find something.  Anything.  We all deserve at least one moment, don't we?"

Resurrection was never that great an idea, but I think with the right execution it could have been enjoyable. Get rid of all the crappy jokes and try and make it scary. Hey, don't generalize about rappers... Ronnie was a perfectly cool character in H20.

Craig obviously couldn't keep up with the schedule. It was obvious by how sloppy his work became... his first issue of FvJvA is pretty good, but it deteriorates as the series progresses. Nightmare Warriors is even worse. If the artist is high profile, like Bryan Hitch, the series will be delayed until they finish. But if it's a C-lister like Craig, they'll just replace them. It drives me crazy. I don't mind scheduled breaks, but swapping in the middle of a story is just unprofessional. The fill-in artist they got isn't too bad, but I'm sick of how identical the females look. I'm not a likeness freak, but these are established characters, they should be recognisable. I keep getting Alice and Stephanie mixed up, which is ridiculous because there's a 20 year age gap. Also, Tommy is pissing me off, he's so arrogant. Keeps talking about how he's the only one who can kill Jason. Um... hello? Tina and Ash kicked Jason's ass better than you ever did, little boy. And Stephanie is a Voorhees!  Paul    730  06:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, trust you to crap all over the mission statement of Angel. It's not that there's no free will, it's that good will never triumph over evil.  It's a futile battle.  Angel knows this, but keeps fighting anyway because it's the right thing to do.  He belives that "if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world".  If Angel sat on his ass, the outcome would be the same but he wouldn't be a hero.  People fighting a losing battle is a huge theme in the show, if not the main theme.  Check out this scene in the finale:
 * Gunn: "What if I told you it doesn't help? What would you do if you found out that none of it matters? That it's all controlled by forces more powerful and uncaring than we can conceive, and they will never let it get better down here. What would you do?"
 * Anne: "I'd get this truck packed before the new stuff gets here."
 * In fact, the comics recently revealed that Angel (not Angelus) is destined to bring about the end of mankind. This fate is inescapable.  Rather than worry about this, he just keeps fighting the good fight because what else is he supposed to do?
 * Michael might not represent all evil in a literal in-universe sense (although who knows, he's just a vaguely-defined "boogeyman", we don't really know what the hell he is), but he certainly represents it for story purposes.
 * I must admit, if Busta was a Friday character, I would enjoy hating him. But he just doesn't belong in the Halloween universe, he's too silly.  The fact he kicks Michael's ass and gets away with it is unforgivable, too.  Michael totally hunted him down and made him suffer for that, at least in my head he did. I've never read or seen those Dan Brown stories, are they all they're cracked up to be?    Paul    730  03:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We've had this argument before when talking about heroic deaths... you think all that matters is the result, not the effort. I disagree.  I also disagree that Angel thinks he can make a difference.  He can make a difference to individual lives, but not the world in general.  That's a huge arc he goes through in season 2, and he basically just accepts that evil can't be beaten.  He also doesn't fight for redemption... Angel doesn't think he can ever achieve redemption, or should ever achieve redemption.  He fights because he just wants to help.  "Hero's don't fight if they know the battle cannot be won."  Sorry, but the series finale disagrees, Team Angel believed very much that their battle was pointless.  They wanted to dent the Senior Partners, not beat them.
 * You're talking literally again. I don't really think Michael is some avatar for all the evil in the world, he's not the First.  But for the purposes of John Carpenter's story, he represents evil the way Laurie represents good.  It's just his role in the story.
 * Well, I heard Busta demanded that his character live. He probably came up with the Kung Fu shit as well.  In the commentary, Rosenthal is convinced the audience love Busta though, it's quite tragic.  What's more tragic is that braindead moviegoers who don't care about Halloween probably did love Busta.  I think the worst scene is when he delivers the Moral of the Story in South Park fashion to the news cameras.  My souls cries.
 * I know the books are famous, and infamous, but I don't know much about the actual story. They sound kind of highbrow and boring.  I heard they had to pad the movie with action sequences to keep people entertained?     Paul    730  04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "You can poop all you want, but the only thing that matters is when you flush the toilet." Wtf??  Where the hell did you get that analogy?  Lol.  I still disagree.  Spider-Man tried and failed to save Gwen Stacy when she was falling off the Brooklyn Bridge.  If he'd sat on his arse and said "Ah, she's a gonner", she would've still died but he wouldn't be a hero anymore.  I don't consider Team Angel's attitude foolish, I consider it realistic.  They know the threat they're up against, and know that it's undefeatable.  The fact they keep fighting anyway makes me love them more.  If you think that's bullshit... whatever. :P
 * The fact that Laurie and Loomis don't say the line "he's a killer shark in baggy ass overalls" makes their character arcs 100% superior to Busta's.
 * I think I was put off by the religious stuff. Even though theology can actually be very interesting, it's usually presented in a really boring way.    Paul    730  16:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason Wolfram & Hart is undefeatable is because of the way it operates. It doesn't try to take over the world in one fell swoop, it corrupts it gradually, and the world lets them.  There's a huge moment in season two where Holland Manners explains to Angel why W&H do what they do; "That's really the question you should be asking yourself, isn't it? See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't enter into it. We - go on - no matter what. Our firm has always been here. In one form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single living being. And that - friend - is what's making things so difficult for you. - See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil, Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us."  That's the moment when Angel realises that it's impossible to truly beat them.
 * The worst line is "Looking a little crispy there Mikey. Like some chicken-fried muthafucka!"  Poor Michael's never had to endure so much indignity in his life, that's definitely the lowest moment in the franchise.  I don't really read novels, but if I'm ever looking for one, I might give Dan Brown a chance, it does sound interesting.  Either that or watch the movie.     Paul    730  19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that for every person Angel saves, W&H corrupt or kill dozens more. It's not a "matter of time", because as Holland said, W&H will always be there in some form or another.  They even succeed in corrupting Angel to an extent, distracting him from his mission.  W&H keep Angel alive because he plays a vital role of evil in future events.  He's never going to win against them, and to show some ultimate victory would totally go against what the show is about.     Paul    730  04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply... yeah, of course I'll look it over. Couldn't find any major problems. Minor nitpicks aside, the page looks great. Maybe find a quote for the writing section just to break things up a little? What was the mission statement of the film?  Paul    730  22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is a reboot of the Friday the 13th film series,[4][5] which began in 1980 and whose last film was the 2003 crossover Freddy vs. Jason. " Is "whose" the right word?
 * "Jason also kills Mike, but instead of doing the same to Whitney he decides to kidnap her because she resembles his mother at a young age." We don't learn that until later, is it right to cover it this early?
 * "Jason comes after Clay and Whitney, who use Jason's love and memory of his mother to distract him long enough to stab him in the chest with his own machete." How do they use it?  Whitney's appearance is important here.
 * "Paramount, which ultimately became the film's international distributor, approached the producers" Reads a little awkwardly.  Should it be "who ultimately...''"
 * Who is this Tommy Jarvis fellow and why would the producers want to use him? I think one of the existing sources calls him a "fan favorite".
 * Does Richard Burgi's sheriff character have a name? If so, we should use it.
 * "the sweater that Pamela Voorhees wore in the original Friday the 13th" This is anal, but up your alley: Pamela Voorhees never appeared in the original F13, "Mrs. Voorhees" did. :P
 * Reception... "The Washington Post's Dan Zak wrote that the film fails to provide the laughs, scares, suspense, gore or even provide the quintessential nudity that has come to be expected from horror movies, as of late, that cannot deliver on any of the previously mentioned necessities." This sentence is awkward, I had to read it a couple of times to make sense.
 * Graham, from The Detroit News, remarks that the 2009 film is most effective and scary film in the Friday the 13th series" Should that be "the most effective"?
 * "praising the film's choice of allowing Jason to run after his victims as it made him more "menacing". " Why wouldn't he run after his victims? What is he, a zombie or something?
 * But if Paramount isn't a person, how can it approach the producers? Should it be "The people at Paramount... who..."  I dunno, something bothers me about that sentence.  Cool on everything else.     Paul    730  22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a minor change to your description of Tommy, but apart from that, it looks good. Oh, btw, have you seen Trick 'r Treat or Paranormal Activity?  Just watched trailers for both of them and they look great.  Kind want to see them more than H2 (which I'll go see this week at some point).     Paul    730  22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say, love the image you've added. Hopefully it won't get removed by the image Nazis.  It's funny, I don't really like Jason's look in that film when I see it in plain sight like that, but it looked great in the movie itself.  That's why I don't really want to see too much of Freddy's new face.  I think Paranormal looks like the scarier one, but TrT looks like the one I'd be more a fan of.  Excited to see both of them.     Paul    730  23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Image help
Hey, I wanted to add an image to the cast section of the article Supernatural (TV series), and found this. Do you know what the policy on using this would be? Ophois (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How would I get a free image? Ophois (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallville stuff..............
I want to talk to you about a page but I want to do so in a less "public" way-- can you drop me a line? lisa_mynx at yahoo...Lisa mynx (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man 2 delisted
Hey, as Spider-Man 2 has just been delisted as GA, the Spider-Man films good topic now has 3 months from the date of delisting, or until 12 January, to get this article back to GA, or the whole topic could be nominated for demotion - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: GAR
The film project was notified... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallville
Since a lot of the edits on List of Smallville episodes seem to be people adding the episode details, and you removing them, why don't you stop removing them? You seem to think you are in charge of the article. I don't want to get into an argument with you, but you since you won't stop undoing everyone's edits, I had to say something. I appreciate all the work you do on Wikipedia, but KryptonSite has proven themselves as reliable.Ocdmuch (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the part where it says that source reliability ALWAYS depends on the context: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Like I keep saying, Kryptonsite has proven they are reliable.Ocdmuch (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you acknowledge that Kryptonsite has been correct about episode details?Ocdmuch (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between the pages where that is imperative (e.g. historical data) and the television pages is that if (and I stress the word if) Kryptonsite is wrong, we will find out in a few weeks and can change it to reflect the truth. Is it really that awful to put up episode titles and dates for other fans?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdmuch (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the episodes with no information should be commented out, because it looks ugly with rows and row of TBA.Ocdmuch (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried my best to work with you because fighting will not resolve anything, but you refuse to work with the rest of us. Other users try to add 2010, and you remove it because it hasn't aired in 2010 yet.  2009-2010 indicates the television season in which Season 9 aired.  Plus, there are already episodes scheduled to air in 2010, so it would be accurate to say Season 9 was from 2009-2010. Anyway, you said that KryptonSite wasn't reliable because they couldn't identify their sources, but they got the news release from The CW (AKA their source).  I'd say the CW is a pretty reliable source for Smallville information, wouldn't you?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdmuch (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the lost symbol / factual inacc.
all the points that I added had a reliable external source to it and were NO original research. tallest building / highest point, please check in the book yourself, Brown is confused here. and there is a difference between the tallest building (habitable structure, churches) and the tallest structures (Wash.Mon., Radio towers etc.), cf. List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C.. So please, think twice or get additional information before removing sections that deal with things a little more complicated. thank you, --84.190.33.161 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

H2: The Verdict
So I finally saw Halloween II today, and enjoyed it more than I thought I would. A lot of the problems I have with the first one still stand but it's a vast improvement. Ignoring Zombie's personal tastes, it's a much more consistant movie in terms of structure and does actually suceed at what it sets out to do. Here's what I liked: Things I didn't like: I think because this film was more detatched from the original movie, I could appreciate it more. That and the fact it's a genuinely more competent movie. It's still the opposite of what I would do with a Halloween movie, but it's a creative interpretation and I do kinda respect that. Where d'you want to see the series go next? I hope they have the guts to follow up on the Evil Laurie plotline; Michael himself is barely recognisable anymore so it wouldn't be a huge loss to ditch him.
 * Laurie's arc in general. She came off as a likable, complex character.
 * The white horse. It wasn't as daft as I thought, it was actually kind of creepy and abstract.  I actually liked all the weird visions, they helped give the movie it's own identity.  Still think it was just an excuse to put Sherri Moon in the movie though.
 * The brutal, realistic violence. Kinda wish they'd been more creative with the deaths though, and not so much crunch crunch stab stab. I did like the eyeless nurse near the start.
 * Mya. By far the most likable character in the Zombieverse, I can actually picture myself hanging out with her. I really liked her look.
 * Annie's maturity and her sisterly relationship with Laurie.
 * The imagery of Michael patrolling the countryside. Very boogeymanish.  Not entirely sold on the hobo outfit though.  I'm fine with the hood, I just don't like how little we see the mask and how dirty it is.
 * Michael eating the dog, and how it contrasted Laurie's family meal.
 * The Phantom Jam. Very cool sequence, liked the Halloween atmosphere.  Bit too much nudity though?
 * Lynda's dad! Nice to see her remembered.
 * Annie's death. Little overboard with the blood and nudity (Jesus, hasn't she been through enough?) but Laurie's reaction to it was well-handled.
 * The final act in general. Liked the set-up with the shack and the cops, very Nightdance.  Loved the scene where Laurie came out wearing the mask.
 * The very last scene with the classic music. Very powerful, totally rivals 4 and H20 as best ending to a Halloween film.  Hope they don't screw it up this time.
 * The coroners. I watched this movie with a female friend and was extremely uncomfortable during their dialogue.  Totally unnecessary.  The dialogue in general was pretty dire.
 * The hospital scene was cool but went on a little long, especially for a copout dream sequence. Some likable victims though. Should Nurse Daniels and Buddy been renamed Mrs. Alves and Mr. Garrett though?
 * Brackett's hair. You're a figure of authority, get a haircut.
 * Brackett's house, it looked like a crackden. What parent lets their kid spraypaint "wipe your ass" on the bathroom wall?
 * The Rabbit in Red scene. Seriously, what was the point?  Zombie wanted tits.

Oh, PS... I know how much you love it when I quote Stef Hutchinson so I thought I'd show you this lovely commentary on Rob Zombie. Needless to day, I agree wholeheartedly. :D   Paul    730  00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rabbit in Red was totally random in the first movie as well. Why the hell was Michael's mom a stripper, it was so self-indulgent.  Trust Rob Zombie to take a minor reference to a strip club in the original movie (was it even a strip club or just a night club?  Why would Marion have matches from a strip club... there's a backstory for you) and get a whole bunch of gratuitous nudity out of it.  I mean, I'm not opposed to nudity in horror films, but it does get slightly ridiculous in Zombie's movies.  Poor little Annie can't go five minutes without being stripped and beaten.
 * Lol, you always defend the crazy hair. "Who would have the balls to cut Michael's hair?" "Brackett had other things on his mind." Screw logic, it looks disgusting.  Same with the bathroom... I suppose it's indicative of Laurie's mindset but it looks like a public toilet.  I wanted to take a bottle of bleach to the whole house.
 * My likes outnumbered my nitpicks, but as you know, the general tone just isn't what I want from a Halloween film so it didn't satisfy me that way. I certainly didn't feel like I was watching Michael Myers, just a crazy hobo with visions.  The essence of the character was completely lost.  I would be quite happy for them to do another reboot.  At this point, the Halloween series is already so fractured that you wouldn't be doing any damage.  I do kinda want to see Scout as a killer, but I'd rather just wash my hands of the Zombieverse altogether and get the Shape back.  More reboots wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.  How many versions of Dracula and Frankenstein have there been?
 * I seriously doubt it's jealousy on Hutchinson's part, just an honest (and accurate) observation. It's not like he's the only person who has that opinion.  He does respect Carpenter and the original movie... and that's a bad thing why?  It is a damn-near perfect movie.  I love how you totally dismiss his articulate argument as "having a hard-on for Carpenter" just because he's "regulated" to comics.  His insignificant little comics receive consistant praise from fans and the admittedly-few critics who read them, whereas Zombie's "TWO" movies are widely (and rightfully) regarded as offensive trash.  But I suppose it doesn't matter how good the actual stories are, and whether it's loyal to the original.  So long as it's onscreen it's better right? :P    Paul    730  03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They're fictional characters, it's all the same. A few months ago, the Buffy fans were wetting themselves because of news about a movie reboot without Joss.  Frankly, I couldn't give a toss.  Joss is still writing the real Buffy, and another version out there won't do her any harm.  Jesus, Dracula, Michael Myers, Superman, James Bond, Sarah Connor, Buffy... they're all just fictional characters at the end of the day and adaptations/reboots happen.  You say Michael is "part of a universe" while at the same time complaining there is no consistant continuity in the Halloween series.  Frankly, Michael suits adaptations/reboots because he's never really worked on an ongoing basis, there's too many different interpretations of him.  He's not "part of a universe" in the same way as Buffy or even Jason, where their collective mythology is greater than any one specific incarnation.
 * Hutchinson probably hasn't written a Halloween film because he's a fanboy who's all about paying tribute to a 30-year-old movie. Nightdance is certainly a better story than anything Zombie's shat out, but you can see how Zombie is cooler and more attractive to the mainstream audience.  Zombie's brutal approach to violence is more in fashion with modern-day Saw audiences, than Hutchinson's contemplative questions about fate and the meaning of evil.  There's also the fact that Zombie is a bigger name with an established music and film fanbase.  Fans do love Hutchinson, but unfortunately the Halloween comics readership consists of about 15 people, which is less than the amount of people who paid to see My Bloody Valentine, regardless of quality.  I don't claim that "people who do comic books cannot do films"; I know Hutchinson could write a better Halloween movie than anyone out there, it's you who keeps insisting that comics =/= film.
 * Hutchinson has made efforts to write a Halloween film, he submitted a script for H2. Obviously, it wasn't what the studio wanted. That doesn't mean it wasn't better than what we ultimately got.  He's said that he is happy writing the comics (or he would be if cheapass DDP would actually publish the damn things).  He writes Halloween for the love of it, not the money, and probably has more creative freedom in the comic medium than he would with a movie.
 * Finally, Hutchinson can say what he wants about Zombie's movie, he's entitled to his opinion. Besides, you think there's one person on that message board who isn't a jealous fan who thinks they could make a better movie than Zombie?  At least Hutchinson has the comics out there to prove he has the talent.     Paul    730  04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael has a long story, but that's not what he's known for. He's famous for the original movie, the sequels are just inconsistant footnotes.  Whether it's adaptations, reboots, different mediums, whatever... at the end of the day it's all just people writing different incarnations of the same character.  We already have three versions of Michael... is another one really going to do any harm?  I just want a good story and a decent depiction of Michael, I don't really give a shit where it falls in continuity at this stage.  You say "the answer is to take them and shift them back to where they belong", which would basically involve ignoring/retconning Zombie's story to make Michael more like he was in the original.  That's kind of insulting to Zombie's "vision", it would be better to just make a clean break and leave his story alone.  You wouldn't be "scrapping" them, because they'd still exist, a fact many people seem to ignore when it comes to reboots.
 * Why should Hutchinson break his back trying to get a movie made just to make his opinion valid in your eyes? Maybe he's not that bothered about making a movie, it's his life.  Lussier has experience directing a reasonably successfully 3D slasher movie, you can see why the studio would find him an attractive choice to direct another 3D slasher movie.  Certainly moreso than a part-time comic book writer who lives on the other side of the world.  Hutchinson wasn't "over zealous", he's a big horror fan and he was expressing an opinion about an movie in a series he cares about.  He has just as "zealous" opinions about various entries in the Friday and Nightmare franchises, and he often compares Resurrection to dog crap.  This big jealous agenda to write the next Halloween film seems to be in your head, he's just a fan like you or me.
 * That page isn't on my watchlist so I didn't see it, I'll read the discussion and give my thoughts.    Paul    730  05:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean someone else's interpretation of the character, not another retread of the first movie. Bring Michael back to his boogeyman roots.  I've always cited John Carpenter's "psychic ghost" idea as something I'd like to have seen.  Frankly, to write a version of Michael that I would enjoy would involve ignoring Zombie's movies because those films are the total antithesis of what Michael (IMO) stands for.  You can't suddenly make him a mysterious boogeyman again while acknowleding two films whose mission was to humanize and explain him.  It doesn't work, the cat's already out of the bag so to speak.  Oh, and retconning H2 so "Laurie did it" would never go down well.  If the studio decides to continue the Zombieverse, either with Michael or Laurie, that's fine.  But retconning previous events and totally changing Michael's characterization in that continuity, just to avoid a reboot, would be awful.
 * Rubbish, not everything I've shown you has been negative. I've sent you interviews where he praises The Final Chapter and Freddy's Revenge in some depth.  Halloween-wise, he's praised II and H20, and is a self-confessed fan of the middle trilogy, even though he admits their flaws.  The fact he criticises RZH is because that movie is in fact a piece of crap, not a problem with his attitude.
 * Lol, we always get fact to Halloween because you continually criticise the original movie and Hutchinson while dishing out praise for Zombie. I'm sure you just do it to annoy me. ;) That's really cool about Englund.  What did he say in his message?     Paul    730  19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "A lifelong fan"? Lol, you suck-up!  Bet you didn't tell him you prefer Jason. ;)
 * Oh, I'm sure we'll get sucked into another debate one day. My final statement on the matter is: I respect Zombie's creativity and courage to do something different with the franchise, but I also think he completely failed to understand what makes Michael Myers work as a character, and ultimately robbed him of his original appeal.  However, H2 was a decent film taken on it's own terms.    Paul    730  00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just teasing. Robert Englund actually tells a story on the FvJ DVD where he met a bunch of fans and they were like "Oh yeah, you're cool but Jason would kick your ass."  He thought it was funny. Where did you speak to him anyway, and what did you say?    Paul    730  01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't think you met him face to face, I was just wondering how he knew you were a lifelong fan. Let me know if there's any cool Nightmare anecdotes in it.  You might even find some useable info for the Freddy article.     Paul    730  02:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Blair Witch budget
You didn't site any policy. Is there policy concerning this? RyanGFilm (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then the question would be; What is the harm of people knowing what the filmmakers spent and what the studio spent? RyanGFilm (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So if it's all the same then why do you keep changing it to show what you want it to show? RyanGFilm (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again - what's the harm in having both budgets listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanGFilm (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it's listed in the article, I guess I can't really bitch too much. Thanks for taking the time to talk this over. RyanGFilm (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Supernatural
Well, the problem is that most of the episodes are stand-alones, so it was difficult for me to get them to their current length. I'll advertise it on the TV projects. Ophois (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article wasn't promoted, from what I can tell because only one person bothered to review it. So I renominated it. Ophois (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the nomination has since been withdrawn. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since that's on hold for a week or two, I'm gonna nominate the main Supernatural article after I finish formatting the refs and the lead. Can you take a look at it sometime? Thanks. Ophois (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial info like what? Ophois (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville
Howdy,

Pls see Talk:Characters_of_Smallville, cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. I have another suggestion, regarding that article, I welcome your thoughts on the matter; regarding the opening sentence; Smallville is an American television series developed by writer/producers Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, and was initially broadcast by The WB. - I think that this could be improved; the very first sentence of any article is so critical, in explaining what it is all about. As an outsider, so to speak, I feel that I'd like to know what it is, from that first sentence - ie the genre, or something. The names of the writers/producers seems to me a bit less critical. Forgive me, because I don't know the programme. Considering the subject of the article, I would like to see something along the lines of "XXX is a ???(comedy/drama/sci-fi etc) US TV show with characters XXX, YYY and ZZZ" - or something along those lines.


 * Another small point; the lede should either be fully-referenced, or have no references at all - because, it should summarize, and thus all the info in the lede should be elaborated upon within the body; at present, the facts about "CW" are not explained within the body itself.


 * I hope that you will accept my suggestions as intended, ie constructive criticism. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Last House On the Left (2009)
Why did you remove my addition to the Last House on the Left (2009) article?

It is correct, Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute to, not just for you to add your additions and remove other people's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlejack86 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Last House On the Left (2009)

I can easily provide a source for my information, the information I added was not for advertising. It was for purely for providing information for people from the UK so they know which is the correct uncut version of the film. As with the US, there is also two versions in the UK, a theatrical version and the uncut version. You're also wrong about "You don't refer to the DVD as being in the US [...]", or you just don't know the MPAA is the ratings board in the US (even I know that, and I am not in the US), so therefore it is easy to assume you're just giving information about the US version and no other version. If you don't provide information in the 'Release' section about different versions, what is the point in having it in the first place? It is there for providing release information, not what *you* call "advertising". You don't make very much sense, but sure, you keep it Americanized... idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candlejack86 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Candlejack86 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

peer review
can you review Family Guy's or Lisa simpsons peer review.-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Superman 2
Incorrect?

Please, do me a favor! It gets changed cos you can't except new information thats correct. Don't go round issuing threats, or that'll be considered troll-ish behavior in itself, o.k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superturbo4 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies
I can attest to Decadent Evil being related to the Subspecies saga. Both are by Full Moon Features and Ash was in Subspecies IV. Vampire Journals was a spin off because that was made before Subspecies IV. But Ash is alive in that film, making it a prequel to Vampire Journals.

Stock footage and a back story from the film is used by Phil Fondacaro in Decadent Evil when he is talking about Morella and how she drifted away from Ash. I've seen the Subspecies saga and the Decadent Evil series and know it's true, but cannot prove it, because all the links about it are on fan only sites! 45g (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)