User talk:Bignole/Archive 12

Superman
You're assuming that his hair would be sharp simply because it is thin and unbreakable, but that isn't necessarily the case. I also don't see a lot of people running their hands through his hair anyway, and his "arm hair" is typically covered by clothing. It would be odd to see Clark in shorts and a t-shirt, given that he wears his suit underneath his clothes. Since his hair is...well, hair, the wind would still move it around. Wind doesn't apply tension to the hair, so it isn't likely to break even your hair if you were to travel at the speed of sound--you'd probably die from the G-forces though, but that's a different matter. As for impact, his skin is unbreakable, like steel, which is not the same as made of steel. His skin would feel like skin, only extremely toned--think body builder tone, but without the bulk. Body builder muscles typically feel as hard as rocks under the skin, but the skin itself still feels like skin. Heat vision is used to cut, not move. If he flew into the Sun, he's probably burn...but if he survived long enough to fly away from it, then it would all heal and his hair would grow back (i.e. Super human healing factor, kind of like Wolverine). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're saying his skin would feel like anybody elses, but that doesn't make sense. If a bullet hits his eyeball as in the film and instantly compacts and stops, the eye not giving one micron of movement, then his skin (which is more resistant) should also not give. If I squeezed his arm, I should get no resistance and it would be like steel. I know this is a stupid discussion, but people get so serious about stuff like this, and I like to throw logic into things like this. For instance, like why, on a planet "far, far away", a robot has a British accent, or why R2D2 can't simply have a English voice chip installed?James Dylan 01:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Homage
I see your point and thank you for the input. I pronounce it with a silent h as I would honor or hour or herb and it rhymes with "Fromage". I assume I can find this kind of thing in Manual_of_Style? GLKeeney 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I just noticed that "an" is used in Homage. C'est la vie. ;) GLKeeney 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Highlander DVD Cover Art
There are tons of articles which have DVD cover art. Please refer me to an article that you think is acceptable in terms of using DVD covers. Thank You FrankWilliams 21:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely handled. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Back in the game
* EXHALE* Well, I have finally gone through my Google Alerts, dropped off headlines where they needed to go, kept some alerts for all-in-one projects down the road, and purged my RSS feeds. Only took like three freaking hours... I really need to keep that crap from piling up. I also made Death Race (film), which began filming last month, but will probably be a crappy movie under that director. Oh, well. I've put it up for WP:DYK. Now maybe I can see about doing some work for Batman Begins or Fight Club -- right after these assignments I gotta do now... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * True, Event Horizon, Soldier, and the Resident Evil films weren't so bad... can't give you AvP, though -- too campy for its predecessors. I look forward to Requiem, though... should be some nice gore. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, seeing your progress with the Reception section for Batman Begins (excellent job as usual), I was thinking that the "Gothic Oedipus" link should become part of a Themes section. Here is my thinking, based somewhat on our discussion with Awadewit.  I learned from him that it may take some time for academic studies (as in 3-4 or more years) for academic studies to emerge for a film, depending on its prominence.  Hence which is why we don't see many for Batman Begins -- it's a matter of time, and this "Gothic Oedipus" analysis is one of the first.  Awadewit suggested providing more context on unintended themes, which is what this analysis will help do.  I was also thinking that themes could be broken down in a couple of ways, depending on the amount of context.  A) There could be a Themes section in which the first portion explores intended themes, then the second portion explores unintended themes.  This would apply for films that are not fully thematically driven.  B) Separate Themes and Interpretations sections, with intended themes for the former and unintended themes for the latter.  This is what I plan for Fight Club (film), since there are so many interpretations of the film.  However, for Batman Begins, I was thinking that we can follow Choice A and piece together what filmmakers said they intended with the film, then follow it up with the independent analysis.  What do you think?  I believe I can help provide more context on intended themes from what I glimpsed in sources like Cinefantastique. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can collaborate on a Themes section as the next step. I really need to write up these Cinefantastique references... go ahead and import Reception; the article will be all the better for it. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very cool! I was wondering, what kind of timeline should we set for this article to get it to Featured Article of the Day for the first-day release of The Dark Knight?  How long would a Featured Article sit among Raul's candidates before it got selected? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. How about we get mostly finished by 2008?  We can do a peer review, ask for independent opinions, fine-tune, then put in the request in the month or two before the TDK release.  Anyway, I gotta stop editing for tonight... I feel kind of burned out, and I have a couple of assignments to address for tomorrow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More about fair use images
Please look at the article for Midnight Movie. I would love to hear what you have to say about those images, the captions in regard to the article and the Fair use rational. (they claim to meet all ten criteria, but...) Also the resolution of at least the Johny Darko image appears to be far to large for fair use. The person that is giving the most problems seems to have a habit of overusing fair use images in articles, way over uses them. Although I did not completely understand your stance at first (sometimes the simplest way to say something works better for me) I believe I agree with your interpretation of policy on this subject. Please help me to better understand if there is a problem on this page. While I do not like the style and POV way the article is writen, my main problem right now is understanding why someone of the caliber of the editor there would have such a different opinion of the policy.--Amadscientist 07:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congratulations are in order for improving the Jason Voorhees article to Featured Article status! I am also flattered that you modelled it after the Jabba the Hutt article I wrote. Best of luck with your other projects. Dmoon1 07:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dmoon1. That was a great triumph, so keep up the good work. LuciferMorgan 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Argentine films
Yes I sorted out those categorized redirects. Basically I was starting from scratch originlaly, We only had about 9 articles and about 1500 red links of the films that were notable. So as I filled in the lists I redirected to the appropraite year which at least provided info in director/ cast etc and got the wikipedia system to recognize the titles and seem my task of filling in the red links seem less daunting. This was to serve temporarily until the titles could have articles of their own. It was also a way of seeing the full extent of the content on Argentina and to begin working constructively to fill out the articles. The only mistake I made was to categorize them. I guess I got sidetracked with the List of American films and  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 12:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also note I certainly don't think every entry on imdb should have an article. Argentina has a very large industry with well over 3000 films. Only about half I beleived were appropriate for wikipedia and I spent a lot of time filtering out the ones which appeared not notable or unsuitable for the encyclopedic. As for the list of missing Italian films. If i ever get around to compiling this, it will begin as an imdb list but then each film will be checked and removed if not suitable each one off short doucmentaries etc. Most of these you can see a mile off if they aren't notable and I suspect there will be hundreds of films which certainly don't qualify for an article. Now do my intentions seem clearer to you? I'd appreciate if you ever have any doubts on my work to contact me personally and I'll fill you in cheers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 12:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement about films articles from Argentina willl never be more than a stub isn't this a bit disparaging?. Your're probably right in the current situation but potentially they can all develop eventually into fuller articles but I agree with you in order to do this the number of people working on them needs to increase considerably which at present isn't possible. There is absolutely no reason why many of the articles can't develop like Kamchatka (film) if ther eis enough info and people available  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC).

I know I'm not exactly rearing into Argentine films either which is probably why I lost interest. The reason I put work into the lists was to try to broaden wikipedias coverage of world film rather than being too Anglo centric. To American and Britain - Argentine film is a bit obscure but in Latin cinema Spain and Argentina are very dominant film producers. I too normally stick to our mainstream films. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Spidey
Looks like the editor at Spider-Man film series might be Ted Newsom himself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, check this out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another instance seen here. I was thinking about going ahead and merging Batman Begins (soundtrack) since there's nothing of value at the album article.  I gotta jet for a team meeting in 15 minutes, though, so I'll do that when I get back.  Think we really need to go through the request for merge process, or be bold? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably should fetch the CFQ article since we haven't technically seen the article yet; just brought in some editor's crapola Not sure why Ted's being combative about the verifiability of Variety and Business Week, though, just because they're online. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He liked The Star Ledger, too. There's Cinefantastique at my library, so I can pick it up and verify the information.  However, I've been ridiculously busy with school (with no major edits as of late, just headline-dumping).  I'll see if I can get to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's slightly annoying 'cause I remember poring over Variety and Business Week to try to best fit the information together. Disappointing to see that my piecing-together didn't work out, but it seems to be more of an issue with how the two sources covered it.  Hopefully he'll understand that we mean business in the name of verifiability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And? Did it all work out to a happy ending?  I hope so.  That's collaboration.  Long live verifiability.Ted Newsom (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WAF
Bignole, I'd appreciate any input you could provide here with regard to this. I don't think this change has consensus (at least not with me). Instead of reverting, I commented there so that we can establish consensus on this. — [&#8239;aldebaer&#8288;] 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chit chat
Oh thanks for spoiling the Claire/Peter thing! Just kidding, I've heard that spoiler. I'm only up to the one where Sylar killed Jackie. I loved that episode, it was real bring-a-nappy excitement (although not literally :P). Nathan pisses me off, but I like bastards (Hellion is one of my favourite X-Men) and he's good looking enough for me to like him. Peter is snoresville... I hate these Jack Shephard-style goody-two-shoes protagonists. Plus his hair annoys me. Niki/Jessica is my favourite, and I love Hiro obviously. I love them all really, just some more than others. Heroes rocks! It's my favourite show after Buffy, Angel, and Doctor Who.

I just created ANOTHER sandbox! I didn't even plan to, it's just List of minor characters in Buffy the Vampire Slayer was pissing me off, and it's too big a task to do on the mainspace. Quick question... I renamed that article (it was originally Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and now it won't show up on my watchlist, even though I have it watched. Splainy? Paul730 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved it yet again because I didn't like the new title I picked. It is now List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters.  Paul730 03:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It aired ages ago over here, but I'm poor and don't have digital TV so I had to wait for it to come to BBC 2. I don't really hate Peter, he's just one of the less interesting characters in a show full of interesting characters.  I love Hiro because it's so refreshing to have a character who just likes being a mutant or whatever they are.  Kind of like Human Torch in FF, only with better actors.  Hiro's so unfazed by it all because he's a comic book fan so he's used to people flying and travelling through time. :) Niki's cool because people think she's just a mousy little thing, and then Jessica shows up and all bets are off.  I thought the split personality thing was part of her power at first, but my friend says it's just her being crazy (he's very PC :P).  Sylar seems like a great villain - he genuinely scared me in last week's episode.  As for DL... meh, he's okay.  I don't really think of him as a main "Hero" - more like a supporting character for Niki.  His powers are cool, but I prefer Shadowcat.  I'm sure the show will continue being good, I'm going to have faith in it.  My friend implied that it kind of ends on a cliffhanger because you don't know who lives and dies?  The creators are really cashing in - there's already a spin-off.  I don't mind that because I love spin-offs - it's nice to see a different side of a fictional universe that you love.  Paul730 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think of Claire and Hiro as the main characters of the show. Peter just seems so... blah.  He's not funny like the Doctor or kickass like Buffy, he's just this obligatory protagonist with very little that stands out about him.  (Although the same could be said about Cyclops, and I love him, so each to his own) Maybe the relationship with Claire you mentioned will breathe some life into him, since I like Claire.  I was so gutted when Charlie died... she was so sweet and likable, although I hear she's in it later (I know all about their doomed romance, non-kiss thing).  I like how Jackie's final words to Claire was "Run" - I like it when antagonists acheieve redemption of some sort, and it was nice that Jackie's priority at that point was Claire's safety and not her own death.  I also like the moral ambiguity of Mr Bennet.  Mohinder is kind of dull... does he get better?  I don't like Issac - his paintings are cool but the character is such a MacGuffin.  I'm so impressed with Heroes, I really hope it runs for years.  Paul730 04:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, you donate a full paragraph to Peter-loving and seven words of hate to Issac. With Issac the writer's thinking process is so obvious.  "We have a guy who paints the future, that'll be a cool foreshadowing device.  Oh, but he can't paint everything or there'd be no surprises... I know, we'll make it he can only do when he's high!"  Honestly, the sooner he dies the better, let's make room for someone else.  I know's Jackie's redemption wasn't much, but it was something.  I just like it when minor characters surprise you.  Like in F13 Part 3, that black guy distracts Jason long enough for Chris to get the axe, when he could have just lay there and survived.  Or that woman in the first Superman film - Lex's sidekick who helps Supes save the world.  Just little acts of goodness that make them human. :) Paul730 05:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Nathan's a bit of an asshole. Let's hope he evolves as the show continues.  My friend says he hardly ever uses his powers, which is a shame because they look really cool.  What's your favourite powers on the show (not character)?  I'd say Hiro, his powers would be so much fun, especially once you mastered them.  Claire's would be handy too, but these healers are always the most unfortunate characters, getting shot and stabbed at every opportunity.  Paul730 05:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter's powers would be better if he could keep the person's powers. Maybe he can and I've just not seen it yet. There's an X-Men character called Mimic who can retain five powers at once, he's pretty cool. The healer's thing is a bit ridiculous, but hey, you've got to show her powers off somehow. Like, why does Claire stick her hands down the disposal when it's still on, or not wear oven mitts? She's a total masochist! Other cool powers to have would be some kind of shapeshifting - like turning into an element Hydro-Man style. I've always kind of fancied electric powers, personally. They're always cool. Paul730 05:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any advice for a List of characters article? I looked at the Smallville ones and wasn't that impressed (hey, D.L.'s a minion of Zod). I've put the characters in alphabetical order.  Infoboxes: I say nay, others say yay?  Do you think villains should be in it?  I thought about creating a "Minor villains in Buffy" article for monsters-of-the-week type characters (not all of them, just important ones like the Gentlemen and stuff.  Like this article.  Just any general thoughts you have... Paul730 06:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. See, now I'm torn. I never thought of having the characters in a table like your sandbox, and now I don't know whether to continue with the alphabetical thing or steal your idea. Also, the characters in my list are from various media. Pike only appears in the film and the comics, and Edna (Giles' gran) only appears in the Tales of the Slayer comic. Maybe I should have the alphabetical thing for more imporant characters, and the table for minors? These are the articles I plan to have in the long run: Maybe I should have season articles like Smallville? That way I could have brief info on all the monsters the week from every episode, rather than discriminating between who deserves a mention and who doesn't. I'm confused! :( Paul730 07:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters - Important recurring characters who do or should not have their own article. Examples include Joyce Summers, Kendra Young, Principal Snyder, Kennedy (Buffyverse), Jonathan Levinson, Robin Wood, and possibly Andrew Wells and Riley Finn.
 * List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters - Less important recurring or one-off characters. Examples include Nikki, Parker, Allan, Katrina, the Potential Slayers - all of whom are important to the show but not really notable indepedantly.  Don't know what to do with Merrick, Pike, and Edna who are film/comics characters.
 * List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains - Basically all the "Big Bads" like Master (Buffyverse), Richard Wilkins, Adam (Buffyverse), Glorificus, Warren Mears, First Evil. I don't think they're notable enough for separate articles.  Not sure whether to include Ethan Rayne and Amy Madison, who are pretty major, but not really "Big" Bads.
 * List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer villains - Monsters of the week and random demons, like the Gentlemen from "Hush", Sweet from the musical episode, etc etc.
 * Similar articles for Angel characters


 * I was staying out of the move discussion because I didn't feel very strongly about it. I've left a comment now, but it's pretty much just repeating what's already been said.  I've asked Zythe for advice on the character lists, so I'll wait for his input.  This whole task has totally snowballed.  I merged Anne and Nikki from their own articles, started cleaning up the character list, and now I have a new sandbox.  Oh well, it's good to have lots of tasks to stop you getting bored.  Paul730 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing with Zach, and I'm not sure if you know this or not, is that he was meant to be gay, but the actor's agent or whatever didn't want him to play a gay character for career reasons, so they changed it. Kind of a stuck-up thing to do really, IMO. The chatacter's sexuality doesn't really interest me that much because it's obviously just a confused mess of the writers trying to cover up their original story. However, from an in-universe perspective, I suppose sexuality is complicated and it's possible that he's confused. His Wikipedia entry describes him as "unsure of his sexual orientation", which is apparently based on his fictional MySpace. He could just be bisexual, and still have a crush on Claire. I don't think he's heterosexual, but I imagine it's deliberately ambiguious because of the actor and his hangups. Paul730 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the Zach stuff here, and it's supported by four sources which I haven't bothered to look at. It's true that it's crappy and conflicting.  But then, maybe it's better than it's ambiguous?  That way they can do the Iceman-style superpowers-as-gay-metaphor thing of him empathising with Claire, while still having potentially-romantic feelings for her.  BTW, I was on the phone for a few hours, and when I came back the Buffy debate has really heated up.  It's weird, because I agree with Zythe and Flyer when they say the show is more notable, but I agree with you that the other stuff is important too.  I don't see the big deal of having a disambiguation page. Paul730 00:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think Flyers getting tired. I can sympathise - this one time (at band camp) I was debating on which image to use on the Link (Legend of Zelda) page.  Anyway, I basically stated my opinion, and this other editor kept taking offense because I insulted the series continuity (or lack thereof).  We got into a petty argument and eventually I was like "I just think we should this image.  That's all!" and left the discussion.  I still don't like the image they used.  Paul730 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it was for the infobox. I liked the Super Smash Bros Brawl image.  This one.  But apparently we can't use that one because it's not (surprise surprise) canon.  I was basically like "Zelda canon?  That's a laugh!" and this hardcore fan got all upset.  I was kinda rude to him though, called him an "Outraged fanboy" or something.  Paul730 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your image would be fine, much better than the current one. I preferred the SSB one though, cos it's front-on view and not from a funny angle.  But nooooo, SSB isn't "canon" even though it's official Nintendo art and he looks identical to how he looks in Twilight Princess.  TBH, a collage like the one on Doctor (Doctor Who) would be better since Link changes his appearance from game to game.  I suggested that, and they were like "Please discusss this on the Ganon page" and I just thought "Fuck it, I can't be bothered."  I have enough to do on the Buffy pages without getting sucked into a vicious debate on the Zelda pages.  Paul730 01:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "good to do"? You mean the Doctor image isn't fair use?  And I do care about Link, he's one of my favourite characters.  And he's totally A-List, so don't diss him. :P I just don't have enough knowledge of policies to argue about images, or enough patience to argue with fans over the canonicity of a series with as much continuity as the Halloween movies.  Paul730 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Halloween has four continuities: the Jamie Lloyd one, the H20/Resurrection one, the Season of the Witch one, and the new one. And all of them are rubbish except the new one.  The H20 one was brilliant, before the ludicrous retcon of H8 ruined it.  Oh, and apparently, you're on a one man crusade, lol.  Paul730 01:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but still. Ultimate Marvel is considered a separate continuity from the Marvel Universe when really it's just a remake, albeit an extremeley different one. Whatever, either way the Halloween series sucks. Although some of the individual films are excellent, the way they're pieced together is terrible. The Friday movies aren't as good, but the series as a whole is much better because it's more or less in continuity. BTW, following the logic laid down at the Buffy talk page, shouldn't Jaws etc be moved to Jaws (novel)? Paul730 01:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, screw that, I meant Jurassic Park. Paul730 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The F13 movies are enjoyable rubbish. They're not good films, but they are fun.  Halloween and Halloween H20 are genuinely well-made films.  I agree that Jason makes the F13 films.  I remember reading a magazine article comparing Freddy and Jason.  It pointed out how Freddy was perfectly imagined in Nightmare 1, and then "sold out" and became crapper with each sequel.  Jason on the other hand, didn't arrive fully-formed, but evolved from an end-of-move shock, to a Michael Myers rip-off, to a genuinely tragic and complex character in his own right.  It was like they grew in opposite directions.  Jason is probably the best developed slasher, even if I'm personally fonder of Michael.  (I don't still have the magazine, sadly, in case you wanted it as a source). Paul730 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of the Thorn story either. But how else would you explain his invulnerability, if not supernaturally?  I think the lowest moment for Michael was fighting Busta Rymes.  That was just cringeworthy.  It took me ages to actually see the F13s.  My video store never had them, and they were never on TV.  I had most of the Halloweens on DVD, as well as Nightmare 1.  Then they had a Jason marathon on TV one week, and I taped them all.  I didn't really like them at first, but they've become more watchable with multiple viewing for some reason, probably as I've grown fonder of Jason.  The last Friday I saw was the first one, so I was aware of Jason before watching it. Paul730 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't explicitly stated that Thorn makes him invulnerable, you're right. Just that it makes him kill his family.  I'd argue that Jamie Lee Curtis is more famous than Kevin Bacon.  I can't remember even seeing KB in anything outside of F13.  But then again, I love JLC so I'm biased.  You said in an earlier comment that Michael and his psychology is what drives the Halloweens.  Again, I disagree.  Of all the movies, 1 and 7 are the best because Laurie is the focus of the story.  Michael is crucial obviously, but she's the stronger character.  When you have no Laurie and the focus is on Michael, the movie isn't as good.  (I won't judge 9 till I see it, since Michael's a different person in that movie).  Same with Nightmare - when the focus is on Nancy and not Freddy, you have a scarier, better movie.  Same with F13 and Tommy (parts 4 and 6 Tommy, not crazy part 5 Tommy).  Paul730 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, still think JLC is more of a star. Paul730 03:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just cos KB's a whore who can be connected to anybody doesn't make him a star. :P JLC is more A-list, I feel. She was amazing/funny in True Lies and Freaky Friday.  Come on, who doesn't love JLC?  Paul730 04:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Never seen it. :P My favourite teen movie growing up was American Pie, as my earlier reference to "This one time, at band camp" may have tipped you off to. Paul730 04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to have such a crush on Stifler, but that kinda went away after seeing him with a mouthful of dog shit in part 3. I saw the start of Van Wilder on TV and didn't like it, but my mum liked it. (Random I know, she loves gross-out comedies.) One of my shameful favourite films is White Chicks, it's one of the worst movies of all time but it makes you laugh. Paul730 04:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't Ryan Reynolds the poor man's Chris Evans? Who in turn is the poor man's Paul Walker?  I've not seen Waiting.. but it has one of my all time favourite actresses.  Honestly, she's hysterical in the Scary Movies.  White Chicks is "up there"... so you like it?  I was expecting a slagging for liking that movie.  Paul730 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, not my words, the words of Total Film as I recall. I'd like to see Waiting....  I always look down on these types of films, and then LMAO watching them.  I liked Chris Evans as Jake, but his Johnny was too OTT for my liking.  Johnny Storm isn't an asshole, he's just immature, and Evans made him too much of an asshole.  Do you like the Scary Movies?  My friend and I are always quoting Brenda, she's the best character.  "Now let that shit just mutilate her white ass and leave!" Paul730 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wayans Bros ones are good. The later ones are okay, a little too family friendly like you said.  Speaking of SM, does this review prove that Buffy Gilmore in SM1 is a reference to Buffy Summers?  Just a little something for the pop culture section, you know.  It's not great, but it was the first review I found which connected them in any way.  Wow, you really love Ryan Reynolds don't you?  I'd probably like most of these dumb gross out films in the right company, although I don't think I'll sink low enough to see Little Man (film). Paul730 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I know it was a bit of a stretch, but it would have been nice to include it in the article.  I doubt the Wayans bros will ever confirm that was their intention.  Oh well.  Paul730 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not. The only documentary is a five minute one where they basically slag off Scream and IKWYDLS for being dumb.  It's okay, if I find a source, I'll use it, but's there's more important things.  Although I would like to mention that Buffy  girl from Smallville if a source ever turns up, so if any of your production books/DVDs mention her, please tell me. :) Wow, have we finally reached consensus on the BtVS page?  Paul730 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Film talk
Ah, I'm not so interested in keeping The Mummy 3 in good shape, but I have heard about the production blog. As for Batman Begins, I didn't mind your edit. I think that when we get to completing the lead section, we can try to summarize what was liked and disliked by critics, rather than saying it was generally well-received. I understand how it could be a POV violation, since an 84% rating could be considered not so great by some people or really great by others. Maybe we could indicate that based on the scales at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's criteria, this was how the film is acknowledged? ("Fresh" at RT, "Generally favorable reviews" at Metacritic.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar at all with Flickr... I never found much occasion to draw images from them. It seems that this shows the best detail, even though the background is a bit lame.  What's your preference? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This site had the references, and I was able to access it through my university. Not sure if you can do the same -- I'd be surprised if you couldn't. It depends on your library website's layout -- it took me a few research attempts to really dig into the resources available. The Cinefantastique stuff in particular are available in print at my library, so I need to go into the periodical section with my laptop and type up all the good stuff. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, can you go here, choose "Film" from the drop-down box, click Show, then click on "Film Index International" at the top? And is it just me, or is the ~ thing in the "Insert" row gone? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet! Yes, let's! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yow. It could go next to the third paragraph, which mentions the jet engine being attached.  Nice going with the finds! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"One version was the flap version, which had hydraulics and flaps to detail the close-up shots where the vehicle propelled itself through the air. The other version was the jet version, in which an actual jet engine was mounted onto the vehicle, fueled by six propane tanks." Two versions... I think that with the jet engine visible, this is the jet version. I think that the other version would be a version specifically for shots of the flaps... I'm not sure if this is the one. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Think we might have an issue putting up Batman Begins on the same day as the release of The Dark Knight? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Guess we'll give it a shot. BTW, don't you hate seeing the contributions of some editors that probably mean well but are just flat-out messy?  Speaking of a certain film series article here... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an effective Google search -- only 10 crap results outside of BOF. I'm not sure if the interview is notable for so much content to be mentioned on the film series article, as opposed to the other attempts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I definitely would not cite the history page. The interview seems OK, but it bothers me that nobody else has independently talked about "DarKnight" (lame title to boot).  Eh, I don't care to fight too much for Batman film series -- when there's information about the film after The Dark Knight, I'd care a little more.  Kind of a nice thing we've put together for these franchises, though, eh?  Addresses a good deal of these future film follow-ups. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: Thoughts on Slither (2006 film)? Two editors were edit warring about whether to mention that it's a box office bomb or not, so Liquidfinale and I did some revisions to be more neutral, though we cited EW for mentioning the film as a "theatrical flop". Kind of a middle ground, but the editor who didn't want to mention that it was a box office bomb removed the relevant bit. What's your perspective on the matter? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hulk talk
I enjoyed the Lee film, and I am a big fan of Bana and Connelly. However, I do feel the whole father-son issue should have been explored in a later film with Doc Samson and the grey Hulk: it just turned the Hulk into a plot device instead of a character. I endorse the whole notion of a story where Banner has to embrace the monster within as a hero. Alientraveller 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand: in what does he not look like Hulk? Alientraveller 16:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right, but it is just promo art. I liked the CG Hulk, but of course, with new actor must come a new design, and I think it is a good idea to have the Hulk look older, grittier, a bit more hobo-like. In the previous film he had just been born and looked a bit like a toddler. Alientraveller 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator position
I want to ask you and few other editors this: I was wondering if you had considered perhaps throwing your hat in the ring for one of the coordinator positions? It seems that you tend to have a good perspective on the larger project-wide issues, but also tend extensively to the articles themselves, and I think it would lend itself well to the position. If you're concerned about the responsibility being too much, I would only like to point out that there are several positions designated for precisely that reason, and the nature of a wiki being that there are always open tasks, the position certainly wouldn't be expected to be on top of everything at all times - rather, it functions to maintain and administer the project organization centrally as need be. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving User:Julesn84's comment from my user page to my talk page. You know that I appreciate it. 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
I have a question for you if you don't mind. Knowing me it may spawn others so let me know if you'd rather not. ;)

When working on articles concerning films\tv, how does one go about doing citations for facts drawn from the actual film? Do I need a written source that says "In this film x does y" or can I just cite the DVD itself? GLKeeney 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Just respond here if you can. Thx. GLKeeney 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that Character X pushes Character Y, then you can cite the primary source, in this case the episode, or film. If you find a secondary source, great, people love those better anyway, but there isn't anything wrong with citing the DVD/Episode for factual events like that. So long as you are not drawing conclusions and analyzing anything yourself, then you are fine. For those instances, you'd either use Template:Cite video or Template:Cite episode, and fill in the appropriate information for each.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Just what I needed. Thank you. GLKeeney 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LeChuck
If you have the time, can you please have a look at this debate? Thanks. The Prince of Darkness 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh
Just left a big rant at Talk:List of Angel episodes. I'm sick and tired of these silly fanboys demanding that the articles are fine the way they are. Sorry for leaving you to fend them off single-handedly as well. Paul730 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You know the navboxes at the bottom of pages? Should they really be included under "External links"?  They're internal links, so shouldn't they be under "See also"? Paul730 09:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Marc Ecko
Need your advice on the way this is written for the Barry Bonds baseball part of the Marc Ecko page:

"Barry Bonds responded, calling Ecko 'stupid' and an 'idiot'. He also remarked that Ecko's idea was 'stupid' as well, rhetorically asking, 'He spent $750,000 on the ball and that's what he's doing with it?'"

I think that's a pretty good way to sum things up.

There's a user I think you know who says, "Bonds responded" and then lists a big long, four sentence quote from Bonds. I'm trying to condense it.

What do you think?TabascoMan77 08:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Nole. I've been trying to tell Anastrophe this. Maybe this would be the best way to do it. Oh, and by the way...NOTHING will ever surpass "ErikBigNolePedia". That's just NOT possible. :) Thanks, man. TabascoMan77 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Verifiabullies is very clever. I would have done with "PikiWiki's" but that would be grounds for justifiable homicide on your part. :)TabascoMan77 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

spiderman 3
What do you mean by "not LEAD material".  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  05:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But I've seen many articles that do not mention the DVD/Home video release in the lead, and is then mentioned in the article. I don't mind if my information (save the last sentence) is put in the release section, but the film isn't just centred around USA or Region 1 dvds, which it is presently.  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  05:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Take Casino Royale (2006 film), recently promoted FA. Dosen't mention dvd in lead, but has a whole paragraph in article.  SpecialWindler   talk   (currently )  05:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville season 7
Why is it that you will continually resort to deleting imformation that i have posted on this page despite it being neither vandalism or fiction? Please get back to me soon, Brian 8915 xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain 8915 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor history
Nah, I was just backtracking my early days as an editor -- I'm sure there are some other gems to be found. :-P I still need to put together a list of incidents like the rapper's attorney contacting me regarding American Gangster, and Jimbo contacting me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a conflict between two editors not limited to Slither -- see page history for James Gunn (filmmaker), too. I was trying to present a middle ground for the film article (which isn't even that great to begin with, heh), but because of the bomb mention supporting editor's deception with sockpuppets, I basically withdrew the concession made with the throwaway mention in the citation of a DVD review.  This probably runs deeper, but Slither is as far as I'll go for now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; from what I saw, I don't think that Slither is up there in terms of, "Damn, they really blew it!" Films like Waterworld come to mind in that regard.  This seemed like a nice example of listing prominent box office bombs.  Maybe time will warrant a deeper evaluation of why Slither didn't succeed, but at the present, there doesn't seem to be any exploratory references to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gotcha>> good point -- will say "by some in the press" rather than simply sayin' "the press."Fearedhallmonitor 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed>> will attribute quote to actual source to avoid misunderstanding; entertainment weekly made the quote, will attribute it to them.Fearedhallmonitor 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you know about the strike so far? Is it fairly certain to take place and/or have dire consequences? Just wondering what you've heard... and yeah, budgetary concerns seems to be the reason for a lot of films in development hell. It's too bad that money has to be a factor in these things. Sometimes I've wondered if we can't achieve the technology to make our own films with crazy-powerful 3D tools. It'd be kind of cool to see the fan fiction with that capacity -- though there'd be shitty clips like made-up love triangles between characters, haha. I do like to see how a film attempts to minimize its budget -- Sunshine (2007 film) did that, but it wasn't received well at all. On the other hand, something like Once (film) is the amazing anti-box office bomb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking that we (you, me, Alientraveller, Paul370, whoever else) should have our own centralized talk page), since we tend to talk to each other a lot. With that centralization, I'm sure our talk pages would be relatively quiet. :-P  In regard to film budgets, I agree with what you mean.  Lord of the Rings is a good example of a terrifically successful risk -- three large-scale films produced at one time to be released a year apart.  From my recollection of the DVD commentary, they really streamlined the production process in various ways.  I imagine Michael Bay did that for Transformers, too -- though I wonder what the studio would try to do for a Transformers 2.  The CGI approach is already established, and it looks like the now-cheaper approach would be offset by the stars' salaries, especially Shia.  By the way, did you see his picture at Indiana Jones 4?  Looks some kind of gross, haha... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like what's taking place here... we've gone from n00b editing to Slither to box office bombs to film budgets to salaries to Indiana Jones 4. I actually thought that Ford looked pretty good as Jones in that picture; maybe it's been too long since I've seen the previous Indy films to notice a big age difference.  Shia actually strikes me as a kind of nerdy delinquent who has yet to master the art of shaving -- this unfortunately seems to be what he's wearing for the film, seeing that the other cast members are in their get-up.  Wonder what the character's back story will be... my guess is that it could be very conventional or very unconventional.  Karen Allen looks like she's aged well, but that could just be starlet make-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, and I perceive it from either end of the spectrum as well -- how did they look back in their heyday? For example, I haven't seen Paul Newman in anything old (except for watching The Sting like seven years ago) -- it's his Road to Perdition portrayal that sticks to my mind.  I think another crazy example is Jim Carrey -- I believe he was 40 at the time of Bruce Almighty being made, and he looks terrific for his age in the film.  The worst cases seem to be with starlets -- I think it might be because there's more cosmetics involved with women than men.  Melanie Griffith and Elizabeth Taylor are a couple of starlets that come to mind... another similar concept are child stars or young stars -- like Jackie Earle Haley was in The Bad News Bears!?!!  When my parents and I watched the Oscars in the past, they'd always be able to identify actors and actresses who have passed away in the "In Memoriam" featurette of the show.  Just boom boom boom, they were able to name most of them.  We'll be in their shoes regarding today's stars, and I think it's going to be very interesting to watch people like Shia evolve as an actor.  I've noticed quite a few of them putting in their roots, so to speak -- Ed Norton, Christian Bale, Jake Gyllenhaal, Heath Ledger, maybe Josh Hartnett, etc.  (For the latter, I wonder if he'll look like the spitting image of Tommy Lee Jones when he's 60, wrinkles and all.  Just think they look similar.)  Anyway, I have to do a killer project for tomorrow (I slept most of the day today; long night last night), so I gotta get off Wiki.  I'll talk to you later on; feel free to respond to my spiel anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No shit... it's way too soon for produce it. I enjoy reading the JLA comics (especially Batman vs. the rest), but they have their own individual histories, much unlike the X-Men or The Avengers. I think it's wiser to focus on individual characters; there's enough backstory for quite a few films. I'm behind Nolan and Bale on their perspectives -- let them finish, at least. And they need to just figure out a more entertaining way to do Superman -- bring in Doomsday, maybe Big Boy Blue needs to be kill'd for major $$$ at the box office. (I just watched a clip of Superman: Doomsday and was thinking, damn, that would look intense on the big screen and in live-action.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Eight main characters... yeah, that's gonna be terrific. My issue is that in the revived Batman and Superman films, there wasn't any suggestion of a world out there with fellow superhero beings.  It would be too weird of a transition to have Bats, Supes, & Co. just kicking major supervillain butt all of a sudden.  I really wish that Superman Returns was less of a homage and more of a "Let's get right into it" deal.  I've preferred the contemporary Lex Luthor (the scheming businessman) as opposed to the mad scientist.  Luthor is capable of throwing around some serious weight with technology and manipulation.  It'd be tricky to introduce alien elements, though... one of the things that bothered me is how do you introduce life from outer space and not have a significant impact on the world?  I was thinking, though, of one terrific episode in which Darkseid invades Earth, and Superman holds them off, but as Darkseid retreats, he leaves a single fatality.  Powerful episode, that was.  Ah, I don't want to think about it, I actually would not mind the writers' strike kicking in just to screw up the JLA project.  There's enough existing film articles to edit on Wikipedia, anyway. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He's just being disruptive now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I brought up the issue with the admin who is familiar with him due to the sockpuppetry report. I can't linger on Wiki any longer tonight, though... got some serious reading ahead of me.  If push comes to shove, I'd suggest just leaving the matter alone until he finds something else to do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I clarified the report with the times and dates to save the onlooking admin the trouble. Sometimes these reports are discarded if the information isn't presented fully enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, man, did you notice the 3RR report above ours? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DVD images
The fellow from the DVD image discussion in the Highlander film article has apparently decided to buck your advice on Fair use and had implemented it in the Miami Vice article for a while, and has since carried his discussion of the subject here. I thought you might wish to contribute to this discussion, as you are knowldegeable about the subject. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Transformers DVD
Will you be buying the DVD in October? Alientraveller 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to flesh this out so the discussion doesn't drag on, will you be getting the two disc edition in October? It'd be awfully helpful to have someone take notes off the DVD for me to keep improving the article, while I wait for the R2 disc in December. Alientraveller 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'm really proud of my work on the article. Hopefully we'll have some insight into the voice actors too! *Fingers crossed* Alientraveller 20:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep fighting the good fight at the notability policy pages. I personally find your Smallville season articles very easy to read. Alientraveller 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions? Alientraveller 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Halloween
Reimagining redirects to the reimagining section of the remake page, as in Remake. It's still the same page, but just on a more specific section. I don't see any harm done. I'm not gonna mess with it or anything, but you could put reimagining. — Enter Movie 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Parodies?
Are parodies of fictional characters trivial information, or an example of the character's recognisability in popular culture? I recently added some info on Link being spoofed in Robot Chicken to his page, and have been caught in a discussion over whether it is "trivial". I'm asking you for your thoughts, since I've been using Jason and Jabba as examples to fight my case. I know I kind of pushed the Jason spoofs onto his article and you were a little doubtful. And you said (as I recall) that it should be okay as long as it was definitely a Jason reference? Sorry if this message is a little muddled, I'm extremely tired. :P Paul730 00:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oi, mate, what are you sighing about? :P Sorry to bore you. ;) The info is currently in an "Other media" section which also discusses the crappy cartoon. Not the perfect section by any means, but the closest there was.  The editors claim that RC is no more notable than any other spoofs, which are ignored on the article.  I said they should make a new section for pop culture, and used Jason as an example.  Am waiting for a response. :/ Here's the clip if you're interested.  Paul730 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I usually steer clear of those Zelda pages, but I thought that sketch deserved a mention. Your argument for it's inclusion is basically the same as mine.  I've not had much of a response yet except "it's trivial", so we'll see what happens. Ta anyway.  Paul730 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville pilot
I've just seen the Smallville pilot on the front page...I remember you said you'd worked on it. Well done on the feature! Gwinva 02:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize this was the day! Hats off to you as well, sir! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here here! Alientraveller 10:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. :) Paul730 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it just seems easier to answer here. lol. Thank you all. I'm beginning to think it wasn't worth the effort. I go to sleep and wake up to massive vandalism to the pilot article and the main article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to congratulate you, but I was beaten to it! At any rate, good job. &mdash; i said 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So how was the new episode? Any good? Alientraveller 07:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode reviews
If you get a chance, can you close a few of them? I'll redirect the episodes afterwards. I just don't feel like receiving any random complaints from people looking for something to complain about. TTN 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that all besides Farscape, Angel, and The Office are ready to go, though those don't really have any current discussion going on. TTN 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Smallville
Yes the episode is a reliable source. I added the citation needed tag to request another secondary source (having failed to find one); the removal of the tag is fine with me, though. Funnily enough I must of said "the episode itself acts as the primary source" a thousand times to people :-P.

Oh, and how awesome is the season seven premiere :). Matthew 18:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Channel 4 is airing season five of Smallville. It is quite fun seeing Brainiac and the foreshadowing of Zod. Will you promise to document the design of the Brainiac ship? Alientraveller 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope there's information you can write on their approach to it. The episode I saw today was "Hypnotic", so I was thinking about Maya/Chariots of the Gods. Alientraveller 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, keep up the good work, words don't express how superb your work is. I support Brainiac for Superman: Man of Steel! Alientraveller 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even though I don't watch much telly, James Marsters is always fun: he has a dark magnetism that might have got him cast as James Bond once had he been born in a Commonwealth nation. Certainly Brainiac would a good "shadow" villain for the film series: I'd like it if he masterminded Luthor's rise into a corporate boss, while using LexCorp to gain control over Lois and Jason. I definitely agree Richard was a decent soul, so if anything, he could die a heroic death protecting his "son".
 * A few more add-ins with your chat with Paul: I always wondered why they had Chloe instead of Lois: maybe I just like Allison Mack too much and I don't want her contribution to the mythology to be on some non-canon character. If you've also never read enough Superman comics, I definitely recommend Birthright: certainly taps into all the themes of Smallville while making Clark/Supes even more accessible and heroic as a character. Alientraveller 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just if you introduce a character like Chloe who loves Clark and serves him like that, Lois becomes redundant. It was like when Tolkien introduced Glorfindel, only never to be heard of again, and Legolas joins the Fellowship. Certainly Peter Jackson thought differently than I did, considering he had Arwen fight off the Nazgul. Similiarly, I don't get why Hasbro wasted a helicopter alternate mode on Blackout: he should have remained Soundwave. Still, I look forward to seeing how Soundwave is done in the sequel. I kinda like the idea of Soundwave being a truck or something, so he can be unique and not another big lug like most of the Decepticons were in the film. Alientraveller 19:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WAF
Over the last days, User:G.A.S and me have been working on a careful rewording of the intro, which we are now jointly proposing here. Since you've been recently active on WT:WAF, I think the proposal may be of interest to you and we both would appreciate your input. Also,, please forgive the timesaving templated wording. — aldebaer⁠ 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your tweak. Doesn't this change the meaning entirely? The meaning I intended was: "despite the fact that WAF is not policy (and should therefore be treated with common sense), following the advice it gives is generally good for the article you're writing". — aldebaer⁠ 13:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The basic thought was something like "the rules are not an end in themselves, but if you do not understand how they came to be, you're part of the problem". However, I know what you mean with regard to the possible misunderstandings. But doesn't the current wording "while this page is a guideline, not a policy, it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception" effectively say "although this is not policy, the page should be approached with common sense"? It seems to make no sense. — aldebaer⁠ 14:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand it as "while [=although] this page is a guideline, not policy, and should [therefore, since it's not policy, but "only" a guideline] be approached with common sense and the occasional exception, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is in the best interest of the article you're writing or editing." I wanted to prevent people from arguing that WAF is not binding on the basis that it's not policy. — aldebaer⁠ 14:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you're right about that.
 * So let's return to the wording itself. I'm not sure how to explain what I mean. Um. Replacing the "and" with "it" seems to turn the half-sentence "following ..." into a semantic non sequitur. The deixis "although it's not binding <-> following it is good" is broken and the half-sentence is trailing there on its own. But maybe it's just because I'm not a native speaker. Not sure. — aldebaer⁠ 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I thought the "while" meant "although" or "despite the fact that" in this context. I meant to use the "and" to say that "although it's a guideline  and although it should therefore be approached with common sense, following it is good. I'll have to assume you're right, but I have to admit it still doesn't make sense to me. — aldebaer⁠ 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But couldn't one say "Although John has no idea of how to write encyclopedically, and he should be careful to apply his sorry excuse for common sense, despite of those two related facts he could do well simply by following the advice we have assembled here." —Preceding unsigned comment added by AldeBaer (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. — aldebaer⁠ 16:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let me bother you with this just once more: How about the sentence "While Wikipedia is at 2 million articles and counting, this is no cause for celebration", found here? — aldebaer⁠ 07:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, although I do agree with that statement. 87.78.158.14 16:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ratings
Well I guess I understand, and once again I am wrong! :( ...but I guess by now I am used to it ;) I just thought it would be a good idea to compare episode ratings, but if there is no way to find a reliable source I guess you are right. (Wikirocks2 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

P.S. I would just like to thank you for actually telling me why you deleted it [the ratings section] and not just deleting it behind my back :)


 * Well I agree with you. Unfortunately the rating have to go.... :( (Wikirocks2 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Sawyers and Texas Chainsaw Massacre
I know that the cook was called Drayton in the second film, but do you know when the hitchhiker was called Edward and Chop Top was called Robert? I just saw the second film today and they never mentioned the real names. Do you know if its original research or not?--CyberGhostface 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

EU
I'm trying to flesh out the literature section of my Buffy Summers sandbox, and am unsure how to approach the comics and novels. Just saying "Buffy appears in novels" seems too vague; Jason's article contains mention of the stories themselves. However, Buffy has appeared in over a hundred novels/comics, most of them monster-of-the-week type stories, and I can't really mention the plots without sounding like "And in X, Buffy fought a bug demon, and in X she went back in time, and in X she fought a vampire queen." None of the stories have much impact on the character, you know? I thought about just mentioning the stories which take place outwith the timeline of the show (and therefore have more freedom in what direction to take the character), such as Queen of the Slayer (an alternate season 8), or the Year-One comics. But that seems kind of POV-y, like I'm playing favourites. I don't want to sound like I'm talking about the material itself rather than Buffy's role in them, it is her article after all. Please tell me what you think, and take a look at what I've written.

PS, I watched the old Superman movie the other week on TV. It was okay, but that scene where he turns back time is just ludicrous. It's like, his dad tells him he can't interfere with the natural order of things, but he does and nothing bad happens. So why can't he interfere? And why couldn't he stop the missiles if he can fly around the world ten times in two seconds??? Ha, it reminds me of this. Paul730 21:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm, not sure creating a new page is really neccesary to be honest. There's already like five Wikipedia pages about Buffyverse literature in general, never mind the fact that all the novels have their own pages.  I'll just mention the ones I already have, with a link to Buffy novels etc.  Should I mention that the rest are "Monster of the week"?  I tried to do that, but it became too much about the material itself than Buffy, as I said.  I make fun of the Superman movie, but I did kind of enjoy it.  It put me in the mood to watch Returns, which is okay.  I like Lex and his girlfriend in it, but none of the other actors really cut it IMO.  Especially Lois, she'll always be Margot Kidder to me (not a big fan of the Smallville Lois, either.  I've not really seen her in many episodes, but she's too pretty, if that makes sense.)  I like Lois, I like her "takes no shit" attitute.  I kind of want to watch Smallville now, it seems like the best incarnation of Superman by far.  Paul730 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't Chloe the real Lois in Smallville, and then Lois is kind of a different character? I dunno, I've never read a Superman comic so I'm not real familiar with the character, but Durance just seems too pretty and soft to be Lois.  But, as I said, I've not seen her too much in Smallville.  The only episodes I've seen is the Krypto the Superdog one, the one about a guy who ages really fast, and the opener of that season.  Who do you think Clark's final love interest will be?  Will it be Lois, or will they break with tradition?  Do you like Lois in Lois and Clark?  The whole point of that show is their relationship, so wouldn't that be one of the better versions?  I can't really remember Hatcher's Lois that well, but I hate her guts as Susan Mayer in Desperate Housewives, lol.  I quite liked Jimmy in Returns, haven't seen Ashmore's.  Felt sorry for James Marsden's character though, Superman was a total homewrecker. :P Paul730 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I know Lois is meant to be attractive... it's probably just because Durance doesn't look like Kidder and that's what Lois looks like in my head. Whatever, if you say she's good I'll take your word for it.  I liked Richard too, even though he's the reason why my favourite X-Man is dead right now (joking, Cyke always sucked in the films anyway).  I like how Richard got to be a hero in his own right, by going back to save Superman.  How developed is Ashmore's Jimmy?  He's basically just comic relief in the films, but if he's a proper cast member in Smallville he should have more layers to him.  And you like Susan... typical. :P  I hate Susan with a fiery passion.  While the other characters are having serious storylines, she's having stupid pratfalls (getting so old) and simpering after Mike.  I sympathise far more with Edie, I think she's more innocent than Susan.  Susan is a selfish liar, whereas Edie just wants to be loved (as is evident from her serious relationships with Karl and Carlos, both of whom used and abused her).  Paul730 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As Mrs Huber once said, Edie may be trash, but she's still a human being. Yes, she's a bitch, but she's also an incredibly lonely woman who has had a hard life (she has like no friends).  Susan, on the other hand, believes herself to be so perfect and, in her own words, "adorable" when really she's just an annoying bitch.  She thinks the whole word revolves around her and her quest for romance.  Edie's more genuinely vulnerable than Susan in my eyes.  I just find Susan absolutely repellent, the character has really run her course.  My favourite character is Bree, she's a legend and she gets the best stories.  I love Lynette and Gabby too, but they need better stories IMO.  I'd like to see one of them solve the mystery one season.  One thing that's putting me off Smallville a little is the Justice League.  I get that it's a Superman show and it should stick to it's roots, but doesn't the whole costumes-and-codenames thing seem kind of out-of-place ad cheesy in the Smallville universe?  I heard that Green Arrow was a kind of jump the shark moment, him and his green suit.  Paul730 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a different mystery every season in Desperate Housewives; S1 was Mary Alice's suicide, S2 was the person in Betty's basement, and S3 was what happened to Orson's ex-wife? Susan solved the first one, but when Marcia Cross threw a hissy fit back stage, they bumped Bree up to main character and now she usually solves them.  Not so much "solve", but is involved heavily in one way or another, you know.  None of what I'm saying about Smallville is really my proper opinion, just things I've heard or my first impressions based on seeing pictures.  If you say it's not jump-the-shark, I'm inclined to believe you because you're a real fan and not some casual viewer.  Like people who say Buffy jumped the shark when they left high school or when Tara died; just rubbish.  This website pisses me off.  The truth is I've always respected Smallville and thought it to be the best version of Superman.  The comics are too complicated (all those reboots) and the films are too brief (Superman and Lois fall in love too quickly for my liking), so a televison series is the perfect compromise.  I have no problem with other superheroes in the show, it always annoys me how Spider-Man and Superman are the only ones in the films, I just thought the costumes were a bit much, that's all. :P BTW, do you think Batman Begins might take place in the Smallville 'verse?  I mean, Batman's gotta exist somewhere. Paul730 00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Clark is Supermanly Lol, that sounded so gay. :P I agree that jump-the-shark moments are usually a load of crap; it's like the fans just can't wait for the show to fall so they can bitch about it. You're right about Buffy; if the show had tried to continue the high school years in college, it would have failed. So, instead, they introduced Dawn and killed Joyce, forever changing the generational dynamic of the show and turning the characters into adults. I'm 22 and I don't need to watch supposed 15 year olds and their love-lives, they hardly know what love is. - Lol, way to sound patronising. But again, you're right. I hate The OC, the whole show is just spoiled teenagers and their pathetic love triangles... who cares? What's your point about Grey's Anatomy? I've seen most of season 2, but that's all. Was Grey's death/non-death all that bad? I know Batman will never be in Smallville, that was kind of my point. Since Bruce Wayne isn't gonna get Smallville-ised, could you just pretend that BB is that universe's version. Paul730 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fine for awhile, don't get me wrong, but I expect growth with that, not 7 years of the same ol' schtick. Yes, you're 100% right. The Buffy/Xander/Willow thing was cute in season 1, but the characters moved on and eventually it felt just like what it was - a silly high school crush (although the Bander thing might be coming back judging from a kinky dream Buffy had recently :P). Greys Anatomy is okay, some nice looking guys (Mc Steamy aka Mulitple Man from X3) but not must-see TV.  The reason I suggested the Batman thing is cos the Smallville Wiki used Christian Bale at the profile pic for Bruce Wayne and it seemed like a reasonable idea.  Maybe they could do a JLA movie in the future with Bale and Welling (not likely, I know).  Cool, it turns out even Wonder Woman exists in the Smallvilleverse.  Paul730 01:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It said in Smallville Wiki that a newspaper headline in the episode "Asylum" read "Themyscirian Queen Address The Vatican". Apparently that's a WW reference?  You like Wonder Woman?  Paul730 01:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm like you, I don't really know that much about her. I wanted Charisma Carpenter to be cast as her in the new movie, but Joss Whedon (before he got fired) said he wasn't going to cast one of his friends, he would cast the best actress or something.  If you read Superman comics, don't you come into contact with her quite a lot, what with all the crossovers?  Paul730 01:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you, the DC universe seems really complicated. In Marvel, the characters just age reeeeeally slowly, but in DC time gets rebooted every ten years or something?  I read a lot of Marvel comics, but only the recent ones.  The only classic comics I've read are Chris Claremont's run on Uncanny X-Men from the 70s.  I don't know how much you know about X-Men comics, but basically the series was cancelled, and then they brought in Wolverine, Nightcrawler, Storm, and Colossus to revive it, as well as turning Jean into Phoenix.  It's a really good run, if a little dated.  X-Men is really good right now - Scarlet Witch has basically "cured" most of the mutant population, so the current event is X-Men: Endangered Species.   Paul730 02:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was a big reader as a child, but once I got an N64 and a DVD player that pretty much changed, lol. I like films, but TV shows are just better when they're done right.  You wait years for a film, and then when it comes out, it's only 2 hours long.  TV shows are like having 22 little films a year!  I was talking to an old friend a few weeks ago, who's a big movie buff, and I was trying to get him to give Buffy a chance.  He was just "It's crap, it's so stereotypical", and I was like "What!?  The whole point of the show is to subvert stereotypes you stupid arsehole!"  He had the first two Supermans, and I asked if he watched Smallville and it was the same response; "It's crap, all TV is crap.", totally closed minded.  If you like Spider-Man, I'd read Ultimate Spider-Man because it's very accessible and well-written.  It's kind of like a comic version of Smallville; focusing on the teenage years anf fleshing out the supporting cast.  Aunt May is surprising good in it, much younger and stronger.  Gwen Stacey is my favourite character in it though; she's this really angry, rebellious teenager.  Paul730 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, Dracula, I don't envy you reading that. I think you're right about TV being more original nowadays; Lost, Heroes, Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty. Films, on the other hand, are just adapting what's already out there such as comics and books. I never really avoided Buffy, I just didn't want to break into a show in it's later seasons. I did think the title was silly though, although I love it now. Paul730 03:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you reading it, just for fun? I just noticed on the Batman Begins page that Rachel has been recast.  Grr, I hate that, it totally ruins the illusion.  I can't believe they're recasting Evie for The Mummy 3, she's like the main reason I like those films. :( Paul730 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, poor Katie Holmes, that was such a thankless role. Going to bed now, G'night. Paul730 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal of Horror
Yeah, I was vaguely aware of it. Lol, were you trying to get me to look at it so I'd see that Jason was the article of the month? Speaking of, any idea when Jason will appear on the main page? Just want to know when to start sharpening my machete, ready to slay the vandals. :P Paul730 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Jason be on a Friday the 13th? The release of the third movie sounds better than the first to me, since Part III is more of a "Jason" movie.  What about June 13, isn't that Jason's birthday?  I'm not familar with the requests for what day FAs appear on the main space.  Mmm, if Buffy's article is ready by the end of the year, maybe she could appear on January 19 (her birthday).  When Michael's ready, he would be perfect for Halloween 2008, the 30th anniversary of the film.  Oh, and I keep meaning to watch my Halloween DVD for Michael sources, I'll try to get round to that.  Paul730 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The birthdays were just a stray thought, I kinda knew they wouldn't work, especially since they're not mentioned in the articles. The film date could work for Buffy, even though it's not canon. ;) I think Friday, June 13 2008 would be the perfect date for Jason. Paul730 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Name changes

 * Just wondering if you noticed my replied at Talk:Gabrielle Lang. I'm kind of on the fence about the whole thing.  Paul730 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. TBH, I much prefer the character's older names.  Van de Kamp just sounds so much more Bree than Hodge, has a nice ring to it.  It just seems kinda odd for the article to to refer to her by a name which is no longer in use.  It's hard to judge what she'll be remembered as, since the show is reportedly going to last another 4 seasons.  Paul730 04:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, Mary Alice really drums those last names into you with that narration of hers. That's why Van de Kamp feels out of date, even after one season.  And knowing DH, it's possible one of them could have a sex change or something, just to confuse people even more (I kid).  Although, speaking of, what would you call Janet Garrison's article? :P Paul730 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Darn, I was trying to confuse you. :P Okaaaay... what about Invisible Woman?  She was intially known as "Invisible Girl" (until the 80s, I believe), but is known currently, and in the films/Ultimate comics as "Woman".  Therefore, she is known in pop culture as IW, but calling the article IW would contradict what you said about Bree.  Paul730 04:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't she been called Sue Richards since her marriage to Reed in the sixties? I picked Sue because both her commonly known superhero identity and human name are not the ones she started out with. She is known better as Invisible Woman than she is Invisible Girl, and Sue Richards more than Sue Storm. Therefore, her article should be (and is) called Invisible Woman, even though you said it should always be their original name. Flyer agrees that it's the common name that matters, not the original one, but Gaby seems to be getting moved back since she's only been married five minutes anyway. Paul730 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Buffy debate, how come Superman's article isn't called Superman (character), when they're several comic books, a film, and TV series with that same name? I'm not disputing that the character is the most common useage, obviously he is, but still... the Buffy TV show is the most common usegae and that still needed (TV series) in the title.  Paul730 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really mind Superman not being called Superman (character), just wondering why he was an exception to the arguments you made for Buffy. As for the "Buffyverse" thing, I think it's because several characters span both series'. Darla was introduced in Buffy, but only became important in Angel.  Faith and Spike have important roles in both series.  You couldn't have "Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel character) as the title, and Spike (character) wouldn't work either, cos there's dozens of characters called "Spike".  You could have Spike (vampire), but that would be inconsisant with somebody like Lorne, who's not a vampire.  "Buffyverse" is a bit informal and fannish, but at least it's brief and consistant, and the term has been used in published sources and by Joss Whedon.  At least that's how I see it. Paul730 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Darla is more of an Angel character, she only appears in a handful of Buffys.  Calling her article Darla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) would be a bit misleading, and there's several fictional characters called "Darla". Paul730 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Smallville
Why have you just undone the edit that i have made to Smallvuille as what you have replaced it with is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.23.27 (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Series 1: Clark Lana Lex Pete Chloe Eric Martha Jonathan

Total =8

Characters from series 1 written out: Pete Eric Jonathan

New characters:

Lois Kara Jimmy Jason Lionel

New characters written out: Jason

So you were right for the original cast being 8 orignally,(forgot about eric being a regular), sorry but the rest of the stuff that i wrote was correct.

Michael
It's cool, no rush. :) I thought the little anecdote about Carpenter going to a mental hospital and meeting a Michael-like kid was quite interesting. I know you wanted a reason to include Loomis' quote somewhere in the article, so I thought that could be it, since that speech was directly inspired by that kid.  Paul730 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, glad you found it helpful. Yeah, the Loomis quote was a bit long winded, but I thought what the heck.  To clarify, they played that scene in between Carpenter's story, so it's clear those were the lines he was referring to, I wasn't just jumping to conclusions or anything.  Paul730 03:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't remember which version DVD you had. I have the 20th anniversary one as well, with slightly different special features.  I'll watch those as well sometime, it'll be mostly the same things they talk about, but there's a tiny bit more info on Tony Moran if I remember right. Paul730 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they should've released the remake next year. Silly Hollywood. Paul730 03:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Any reason why you didn't change the Eminem quote box on Jason's page? Is that an exception or something coz it's not a quote from a person?  Paul730 03:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you think Slayage is a reliable source? It's being challenged over at Willow's page for being a blog? Paul730 22:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buffyverse, since it's relevant to all Buffyverse pages. Paul730 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Already have, as well as another editor who is familiar with Slayage. Think I'll inform Zythe as well, since it was his edit which was removed, and he might have an opinion.  Thanks for the advice, I know how fussy you are about reliable sources so I trust your judgement. :) Paul730 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Knock knock
Unless the "Contact me" link is just a standard addition to your name-signing, here I am, B-N. If you want to contact me directly, try act3prods@aol.com. Thankx.Ted Newsom 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the assist, Big. I followed up with a bit more depth to the answer, as he thought Original Research meant he had to track down Miller and interview him personally. I had never considered that as a possible meaning of the term. I guess I have to thank you and Erik for seeting me on the Path of Righteous Editing long ago. I'm trying to do the same for others now. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit
Checked the Smallville page, looked fine to me. :) One thing, is Martian Manhunter actually called MM in the show? Sometimes these modernisations gloss over stuff like codenames.  Wanna look over my rewritten plot at Bree Hodge?  I really enjoyed writing it, that show is ludicrous with all the murder and scandal, lol.  Paul730 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, just the "Storylines" section. :) Paul730 01:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's cool about the semi-colon. Wasn't sure about it, was counting on you to double-check. :P If he's referred to as MM in sources, that's okay, it's just you know what they're like with these adaptations and codenames.  I'm really in the mood to watch Smallville, I was wavering about buying season 1 in Forbidden Planet today but I couldn't really afford it.  BTW, how big are Supergirl's juggs in Smallville?! I bet the fanboys are just loving her! :P Paul730 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a retorical question, but thank you. ;) Forbidden Planet had s1 for about £20, not sure how many $s that is. I'll get it eventually, but what with Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives to buy as well, I might just wait till my birthday next month.  (That is if I don't spend all my birthday money clubbing as I will finally be 18 and therefore old enough to legally drink.)  I kinda can't be bothered with the earlier seasons, but I feel like I have to watch them.  The later seasons look better.  Paul730 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool (fanmade) JLA trailer. This got me excited and I'm not even a DC fan, so I thought you might like... Paul730 20:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh... wasn't Green Lantern just the Human Torch, only fiddled with to look green? Lol, what was wrong with the old Flash TV show, besides being horribly dated I mean?  I like how Wonder Woman was edited convincingly in with the new films; the bit where she and Clark run out, changing into their costumes as they go, was quite impressive.  A JLA film could be better than I thought.  Who's your ideal JLA line up?  Paul730 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Catwoman, I've not seen that but my friend claims it's under-rated. :/ My perfect JLA... I'm not too familiar with anybody except Supes and Bats, but I would say the Trinity (obv), Flash, GL, Aquaman, and maybe Manhunter. Don't want too many, otherwise some characters won't get their due. *Glares accusingly at X-Men 3*  I'd be tempted to include one of those stretchy guys as well, but since we've already seen Reed Richards it might be kind of obsolete.  (Be cool to see them in Smallville though, maybe)  I know what you mean about characters getting individual films.  Isn't that what they're doing with the Avengers film?  Making Cap, Iron Man, Thor, and Antman movies before lumping them all together?  I'd like to see an Avengers film based more on the Ultimates than mainstream Avengers.  It'd be cool to see Shulkie somtime down the line, but somehow I doubt she'd transfer well to the big screen.  As for a strong, black superheroine, we've always got Storm.  Paul730 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have thought a Thor movie would be more popular than Captain America. Personally, I'm not much of a fan, but then I don't really like all that medevil stuff.  As much as I respect Lord of the Rings, I didn't enjoy it.  I'm not excited about Iron Man either.  Maybe it's because I'm jaded from one lacklustre Marvel adaptation too many (didn't even bother seeing Spidey 3), or maybe it's because I don't like Tony Stark (he's an asshole), but I just don't care.  The suit looks better than I thought it would though.  Antman could be fun if they don't take themselves too seriously.  The Antman in current continuity seems hilarious (based on covers - I haven't read it yet).  He's the Irreedeemable Antman, the worst superhero ever, "he'll save your life then steal your wallet", LOL.  I doubt the movie will take that tone, but they should try to make it unique and funny somehow.  What makes you think FF should have been marketed to adults?  The theme of the book is family values, so it couldn't have been all self-loathing darkness.  I agree that the film was severely flawed, but that was down to the fact that none of the actors had any chemistry.  EDIT: As for an Aquaman film, he's gonna have to pull his speedos up quick unless he wants Namor (apparently played by David Boreanaz) to steal his thunder. Paul730 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally like Cap better than Thor, but TBH, I'm not really interested in seeing a film about either of them. There's a reason the Avengers were formed; it wasn't fate that brought them together as the writers would have you believe, it was bad sales. ;) The characters work better as part of a team IMO, that's why the only Avengers' solo series I buy is She-Hulk.  That said, at least solo films will get the exposition out of the way and allow the Avengers film to get on with the story instead of explaining the characters' origins.  I dislike Iron Man.  I feel that the character was unnecessarily villainized in Civil War because the writers needed to justify Captain A's opposition to the Superhuman Registration Act.  The SRA was perfectly reasonable - realistically, why shouldn't superheroes be organised and formally trained in their abilties, especially when un-trained superheroes recently caused the deaths of hundreds of people - so the writers had to turn Iron Man into a ruthless asshole in order to make the anti-reg team seem like the good guys.  I think Marvel themselves wanted the readers to be anti-reg, but I found it kind of hard to agree with either side, they both conducted themselves poorly.  Which I guess is realistic, since there isn't usually "goodies and baddies" in real life, but still.  Getting back to my initial point, I hate Iron Man.  And he recently back-stabbed She-Hulk, how dare he! :P Paul730 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right when you say I like and hate him at the same time. His costume/powers are cool and I like that Marvel had the balls to make one of their mainstream characters an alcoholic, but he's just such a sleazy bastard that I find it impossible to really like him. Can I ask, how do you know Iron Man if you don't read the comics? Paul730 02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, most of my knowledge about Marvel characters is from reading about them. It's just impossible to read every book a character's ever been in, and even after reading stuff like the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, I only know the basics.  Guess that's the charm of a comic book character. ;) I just figured that since you weren't really a comic reader, you wouldn't know a lot about the non-film characters.  From what I know, Iron Man's origin in the film looks pretty loyal to the comics, so at least they're being respectful of the source material.  Paul730 05:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You think maybe they're getting ahead of themselves by planning for future sequels? I think Iron Man could make a nice one-off film, but a whole series?  Then again, maybe such restraint will make the movies better, since too many storylines were what ruined X3 and Spidey 3.  I guess they could always follow the alcoholism plot up in the Avengers movie.  I'd like to see multiple Avengers films.  Wow, this is really is the decade for superheroes isn't it?  What a great time to be a geek. ;) Paul730 05:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it started more with X-Men than Blade. Sure, Blade's a Marvel character, but he's not really a superhero. What do you think have been the most successful comic-to-film adaptation of a superhero? (In terms of the character, not the film itself) I'd definitely say Mystique, Nightcrawler, Wolverine and Magneto; they all managed to take the source material and make it even better. Doc Ock was pretty good as well, although I'm not a huge fan of the character. Paul730 06:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nightcrawler was good because they managed to tick all the boxes of his character. Religious beliefs? Check. Circus backround? Check (the posters in his room).  Cool powers and an amazing action secene to demonstrate them? Definitely check!  The character had remarkable depth to him despite limited screen time; the scene with him and Storm in the X-Jet where they talk about anger and faith is one of my favourite scenes in the trilogy.  Mystique was good because they took the character and made her completely their own.  She's one of the coolest characters in the film in so many ways; her relationship with Magneto is genuinely touching, and her "Why don't you stay in disguise all the time/Because we shouldn't have to" line is quietly powerful.  God, I love X2!  Damn you Bryan Singer and your treacherous ways! :P Paul730 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was never that bothered about 'Crawler being left out of X3. I liked him, but he was so good in X2, and there were so many new characters to introduce, that he just didn't seem necessary.  Having him in it would have rendered Beast a little redundant, you only need so many blue furry acrobats.  Beast was a decent adaptation, he's really more of a scientist than a politician, but that's okay.  He didn't get as much time to shine as he deserved, but his part of the battle was cool.  Rogue was just hopeless, they got her completely wrong.  I'm all for changing a character slightly to suit a film, but draining her of all personality and leaving her a useless shell is unnacceptable.  Her name is Rogue for God's sake, she's supposed to be badass!  They could have had her evolve over the trilogy, but they didn't even bother.  Paul730 16:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta for cleaning up my sandbox. I knew there was 2 pages, but thought it was only neccessary to link to one. The other one says an alias of hers is "Anya", which is crap. Paul730 03:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet context
Hey, Bignole. Sorry you had to fix that. I was actually going to add another subsection, but didn't get around to it, so I guess it serves me right. I was wondering if someone would catch it before I expanded the section. I'll add it tonight. Thanks. Wrad 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironic. I guess everything is connected. Wrad 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dream casts
Thoughts? Feel free to use the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Imdb reliability
Someone asked me a litle bi ago about where to find the info regarding WP policy on citing from Imdb. I found the templates, but not the guideline/policy. I seem to recall you weighing in on this topic earlier this Summer, but can't for the life of me find the WP policy on it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: episode notability
The only thing I don't understand is: why is Wikipedia so persistent in having no episode pages/short summaries. I just don't understand why we can't have nice, long episode pages that can have the full plot, have a section for arc significance, and have extra info? Oh well, I guess the Wikias' are there for that stuff...but still! (Wikirocks2 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Im Back
Yo, Big. im back after a loooong vacation! Ill try to give you some articles that need cleanup =)  ATROCITY1313     (Contact me)   —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)