User talk:Bignole/Archive 15

Break
It's too bad he couldn't just work with you. Might have saved himself some effort. Did you use any of his work? I didn't know that the Exorcist demon was a character, that's kind of cool. I've only seen the first Exorcist, it was a bit too talky for my liking. Preferred it the second time I saw it, cause my expectations weren't so high. I remember watching Evil Dead and thinking, "Wow, this is like a totally hyper version of the Exorcist."  Paul    730  00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I meant "hyper". The Excorcist girl just lay in bed and performed party tricks; in Evil Dead the deadites were flying around, limbs were being hacked off, eyeballs being gouged, etc.  It's so over the top it's like a cartoon, which, after watching the sequels, I realise was most likely deliberate.  I didn't really like Evil Dead the first time I saw it - I don't why, but it just thought it was lame.  I didn't like ED2 on first viewing either, because by that point I'd grown to love the first one, and the second one was so different that I felt disappointed.  The third one was good though - even though it's the worst film, I got what I wanted from it.  Overall, 2 is probably my favourite.  When I saw that for the first time, I was like "Wow, Ash learned how to act!" :P    Paul    730  00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Deadite Ash was very cool, although I like Bad Ash in AoD as well. In the commentary, Raimi basically admits that the third movie is flawed.  He says that Ash's character changes are inexplicable, and he becomes really mean.  Which ending do you prefer?  The future one is probably more in-character for Ash, but I'm a sucker for a happy ending so I gotta go with the S-Mart one.  One thing I didn't like about the third one was that the deadite rules went out the window... Ash defeats one with a shotgun?  I don't think so, what happened to the dismemberment rule?  I'd like the ED franchise more if there was some semblence of continuity.  And most third movies are shit, or at least a drastic decrease in quality from the first two.
 * So new Friday the 13th isn't a remake? Hmm, this sounds bullshitty to me, as if they're trying to disassociate themselves from the stigma of remakes.  I'd kind of prefer it if it was in the regular F13 contunity though.     Paul    730  01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The alternate ending. I believe it was changed because the studio thought it was too much of a "bummer".  Yeah, I read the F13 link... if it's replacing or retconning anything then I'm not happy, if it's just set between films (part 2 and part 3 might work) then I don't mind.  It's not like the F13 movies have real tight continuity anyway (how did he get back from NYC again? :P).  It sounds retconny though, since they said the mask origin would be different and Tommy might be in it.  Like I said, it sounds like they're just shying away from the word "remake" at all costs.  Speaking of Evil Dead and remakes, did you ever hear that (long-dead) rumour that Nick Brendon was gonna play a new Ash?    Paul    730  02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember being excited at the time cos I love Nick Brendon. I doubt it'll happen, but I'd be happy with him as Ash, especially since he's not fat anymore.  I think the alt. ending was supposed to lead into an ED4 where Ash was fighting deadites in the future.  The F13 continuity is hardly "tight", lol.  How did he survive his drowning again?  Where did all that hair go?  How come Chris saw Mrs Voorhees in the lake?  How come it's called Camp Crystal Lake in later films even though they changed the name to Forest Green?  How did he grow an extra foot in height over the years?  And no fanon explanations please. ;) Lol, the continuity's not bad, better than Halloweens at any rate, at least all the films are canon.  Except... hasn't Manhattan been retconned out of continuity?  I heard one of the novels replaced it and New Line deemed it non-canon.  Might just have been fanwank.     Paul    730  02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on, there's massive plot holes in that series. That doesn't mean it can't be stitched together by fans, but they're still plot holes.  How can Chris dream about someone she never even knew about?  She didn't know who Jason was, much less his mother.  Was that really a dream?  A difference in height between actors is one thing but he turns into a frickin giant!  Maybe his healing factor makes him grow extra flesh or something, making him bigger. ;) I'm not criticising the series, but come on, let's not pretend it has tight continuity.  Speaking of dodgy continuity, who knew South Park of all things could generate such fancruft?  I mean, fictional brands?  Really?     Paul    730  02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "I didn't "stitch" anything together, I reported the facts as they are in the film." Please read WP:NOR. ;) Alice at least knew of Jason - Chris had never heard of Mrs. Voorhees.  Young Jason and Tina's Dad also appear as bizarre apparitions, which makes me wonder if the souls of the people who die at Crystal Lake become trapped in the lake because of the "Camp Blood" curse.  Forever condemned to make moviegoers shit their pants in the final 5 minutes of F13 films... lol.  It might have been intended as a dream, but now that we know the Jasonverse is supernatural, it seems less likely (I'm not talking about continuity errors anymore, just theorising).  And it may all tie into the Necronimicon, judging from JgtH and FvJvA.  I actually think the plot holes add to the whole camp fire tale charm of the series... kind of like how the Zelda plot holes make it feel more like an actual "legend" - passed down through the generations.  Or maybe it's just bad writing, lol.
 * Yeah, I saw Movie defending his source. I kind of thought "Oh no, another Robin."     Paul    730  03:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I knew you were going to throw that OR joke back in my face, that's why I clarified that I wasn't discussing continuity errors any more. You were using OR to justify plot holes in the series, I was just casually theorising like any fanboy is perfectly entitled to do. ;) Lol, we've established that F13 has better continuity than most horror series, let's move on.  Oh, and I'd say the existence of Hell, dream killers, demonic books, and telekinetics qualifies a supernatural universe.     Paul    730  03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you were just guessing the dates, etc; all the timelines I've seen have clashed, so I didn't think there was any definitive version. If you have sources, then fair enough, but it's not apparent in the movies themselves.     Paul    730  03:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The timelines linked on the franchise page are pretty good. They freely admit using OR, but it works out okay.  One of them tries to keep all the movies on a Friday the 13th as well, which is good, because the films totally abandoned that concept after a while.  And don't parts 2 - 4 take place over a week or two, not one night?  I doubt the girl in 2 died, and then her brother shows up the exact same night in 4 with newspaper articles about her death.     Paul    730  04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Grr argh
I'm struggling together some sources for the vamp article, and was wondering how I should cite an audio commentary for a televsion episode? Should I just use "cite video" and replace the film name with the episode name or something? BTW, I deleted almost all of that article and wrote a brief in-universe summary of the mythology. I've still to cite specific episodes, but it might have some OR issues, since I was writing from memory. There's actually s decent amount of creation info on Buffyverse vamps, it's just notability which is the problem. Plot and OR were the nom's concerns, so I'll address those first.  Paul    730  01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The term Buffyverse has appeared in other places besides the creators/fans... er, one at least, there's an academic book called Physics of the Buffyverse that I once swithered about buying and never. I dunno... I totally get what you're saying and TBH I'm kind of uncomfortable with the term on Wikipedia myself (at least as an article title), but what about characters who are predominently Angel characters but appeared on Buffy first, like Darla?  Or Wesley, even though his article title doesn't use the word Buffyverse so that's a meaningless argument... You wouldn't name Wolverine's article "Wolverine (Incredible Hulk)" just cos it was where he originated.  (Personally I think Wolvie's article should be named "Wolverine (Marvel)" not "Wolverine (comics)" since he's well-known for being a film/cartoon character.  I dunno... "Buffyverse" to me just implies the Buffy franchise as well as the actual fictional universe, although I can see how people might mistake it as purely in-universe.  I think the matter has been discussed by the Buffy project extensively long before I became an editor, not that that means much.  It's something I've thought about before... but ultimately inconsequential ATM when the article is as much a piece of crap as that vamp article, lol.  Thanks for the vote of confidence as well... what quality do you think Faith is currently?  As you know, I'm not finished it yet, but Zythe said he thought it was at least GA.  I know you're more anal than the average bear... ;) Looking at it, it doesn't establish much notability, hopefully I can fix that with some of those academic studies.  I actually still have a few more companion books/DVD stuff to look through, don't know whether they'll be helpful or just the "We're so great" gushing.     Paul    730  01:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've actually had to switch off some Heroes behind the scenes docs because they were so insufferably smug. Everyone's "such a delight to work with" it's sickening.  Lol, I've heard rumours that SMG and Joss Whedon clashed on the set of Buffy.  Apparently, she and Joss both considered themselves primarily the reason why the show was a success and didn't like the fact that the other one took the credit.  And SMG is absent from all Buffy special features, which is pretty fucking rude when you consider she did a commentary for Scooby-Doo.  I wouldn't submit something until you thought it was solid anyway, just cos I value your opinion.  I just wondered, cos I've seen some crap promoted to GA before.  The Buffyverse thing... let's move Faith to (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) rather than (Buffyverse) and if people object, we can explain our reasons.  If not, we can go through the rest of the Buffy pages and fix them, the articles which deserve to exist in the first place anyway.     Paul    730  02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're going to make changes to the infobox, could you please make them at Template:Infobox Buffyverse Character as well as on Faith's page? That specific change you made is okay, since the template is for all "Buffyverse" (:P) characters and you don't want Gunn or somebody's saying "Buffy character", but just for future reference.  Also, the talk page has went all wacky since the move - it seems to be an old version from when the article was called "Faith (BtVS)".  And as for being honest with castmembers, I don't think Whedon minced his words when it came to Donald Sutherland.  I believe he referred to him as "a certain OTHER thespian who shall remain hated."  Lol, you can see more than a little bit of Cordy in her creator.     Paul    730  02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whedon gets on my nerves for a multitude of reasons, number one being how arrogant and self-absorbed I think he is, but I still respect his work. He has a habit of writing stuff and then blaming others when they don't work, which may be true but still a bit tacky. Besides Alien 4 and the Buffy movie, he blamed Halle Berry's delivery of his "Do you know what happens to a toad..." line in X-Men.  (Imagine Buffy saying that line and it actually works.)  Also, his X-Men comic is both frequently delayed and ignores current continuity; he tried to turn Emma crazy, which was crap because she was behaving normally in three other titles which actually followed continuity.  Sutherland certainly wasn't hilarious as Merrick, though whose fault that it I don't know.  I actually think Merrick had potential as a character - on paper he worked, but not on the screen.  Giles and Xander are basically just better versions of Merrick and Pike, although I am fond of Pike.  I liked the non-canon comics which fleshed him out a little bit.     Paul    730  03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it ruined what was supposed to be a kick ass moment. I think Halle deserves most of the blame though, just cos I don't like her. ;) Have neither seen nor heard of those movies, and that reference went over my head.  Not a big Donald Sutherland fan, can't remember ever liking him in anything.  To be fair, I haven't seen him in much.     Paul    730  04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, still don't get it. *Googles "boot-maker Donald Sutherland"* Hmm, all Buffy stuff, must be Merrick reference. Wow, that's fairly obscure, how much of a fan of that film are you? :P I've seen it two or three times but I can't remember it word-for-word, it kind of bores me. I find it rather depressing for some reason. I thought Body Snatchers was kind of depressing too, must be a Sutherland thing. I liked the 1956 version when I saw it, I thought that one was scary. I like Body Snatcher stories... I have The Faculty on DVD and I think "The Magic Bullet (Angel episode)" is really scary. I'm also really looking forward to Secret Invasion, which is basically Body Snatchers with Skrulls. I've never seen a Man with No Name movie... *Lols at Bignole's gasp of horror* What can I say, I'm just not a fan of Westerns. The closest I've got to liking a Western is Back to the Future III. :P   Paul    730  05:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I watched the first few episodes of Invasion but then I just kind of forgot about it. It wasn't that big of a hit over here, to my knowledge.  It's not just Westerns, I don't really like anything not set in contempory times... things like Alien, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, they just seem too far removed from the real world for me to identify with them.  I still respect them as excellent films, they're not my thing.  I'm sure there's a few exceptions to the rule, though... I love Terminator and Doctor Who, probably because they cross the fantastic with the mundane, I like that sort of thing.  I probably liked BttF III because I already knew the characters, and they were experiencing it from the perspective of a modern person.  I would have hated Army of Darkness if I wasn't already an Ash fan.  My little quirk doesn't seem to apply to video games - I absolutely love Zelda and TimeSplitters 2.     Paul    730  05:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, never got into Star Wars, although my friend forced me to watch them as a child in an attempt to covert me. Everytime I see them I say "I'm going to like it this time" but it never works.  Like I said, I respect it as a good movie saga and would defend it from criticism... oh well, my loss.  I also hate The Matrix - it's all gibberish to me. *Another gasp of horror*  I liked Aliens though, if that helps, not sure why.  Better character development probably, although I'm not keen on how Hicks and Newt were slaughtered in the next movie.  I know I'm not alone in that.  Lol, your friend would like Sin City... that had boobs in it, right?  Seems like it would.  I loved Sin City, although it's not my type of film either.  It was probably the visuals - if it had been a straight noir film I wouldn't have been as interested.  And Clive Owen certainly didn't hurt.  People accused that film of being sexist... uh, hello?  The hookers were like the biggest kick-ass characters in it.    Paul    730  06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the first Alien really bored me. It's sooooo long.  I liked Jones though, he must be the only character to survive those movies, lol.  As long as the animals make it through, that's all that matters. ;) Looking at my DVD collection... used to be a big Bond fan but I kind grew out of them.  GoldenEye is by far my favourite, always had been.  I always liked Natalya in that movie, I thought she was such an underrated Bond girl.  I love Mean Girls, don't know if that would appeal to you, but it's genuinely funny.  It's a total cult classic.  My favourite childhood movies were Toy Story and Nightmare Before Christmas... guess I had a taste for good animation.     Paul    730  07:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to you both here: Yeah, that line does suck, poor Storm doesn't have much luck in those movies. I got into Bond through the GoldenEye N64 game.  It was my first FPS and I loved it.  I started to get into the franchise, and when I saw the GoldenEye movie, I thought it was brilliant.  I was like "I've jumped off that dam, I've iniltrated that facility!"  Lol.  I like Connery (I've got all his ones, minus Diamonds), can't really remember Lazenby although his film was OK, I hated Moore... he just wasn't sexy enough to be Bond, he just came across as a creepy old man IMO.  His earlier films are OK, in a cheesy kind of way (I liked Jaws!).  Dalton was quite good, I thought his movies were underrated.  Brosnan is my favourite Bond, although his movies are more hit and miss.  GoldenEye is perfect, that has everything you could want in a Bond film.  The other three were kind of "meh", World is Not Enough had a lot of stand out moments.  I think Brosnan is the best looking Bond.  I've not seen Casino Royale, and don't really want to.  It seems - and this is just my prejudice - that they sucked everything that made it a Bond film and left it an empty husk.
 * I didn't get into slasher movies until I was ten or something, although I was always obsessed with horror. My first slasher movie was Scream, I remember being terrified during the opening scene - the bit with Drew hiding when the killer was in the house.  After Scream, it was Halloween and an obsession began... I didn't see the Fridays until many years later, they didn't have the same impact on me, although I grew to appreciate them over time.  Speaking of Salem's Lot, that scene in the first film, with the boy floating outside the window, totally traumatised me as a child.  I haven't been able to sleep with the curtains open since. :D    Paul    730  20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought it seemed like a good movie, just not a Bond movie. If I get the chance, I'll watch it but I'm not in any rush.  They always play Bond films on TV, I'll watch it next time it's on.  The only thing I found unsettling about TCSM is the dinner scene... that wasn't so much scary as just "this is really fucked up".  I thought Halloween was scary - the thought of looking out your window and there being someone staring right back at you completely freaks me out.  The last TV/film thing I remember being scared by was Dr Who believe it or not.  They had an episode about stone statues that came to life when you weren't looking at them... Here's a clip.  It looks cheesy, but after half an hour of tension, it was really exciting at the time.     Paul    730  21:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was angry when they cut the microwave scene from Gremlins, they're always editing little bits and pieces out. It's pretty obvious when they do though, it never looks consistant. Apparently us Brits are very senstitive to head butts, those are always getting cut out. I remember Sam Raimi laughing on the ED2 commentary, because Britain had cut out a scene where the hick guy kicks Ash across the face. You can cut arms and legs off, but heaven forbid you kick someone in the face, lol. Oi, don't diss the Weeping Angels! ;) The bit were they were all coming at the TARDIS terrified me! And because those weren't regular characters, they could have easily died.     Paul    730  22:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole "don't blink" thing is why it was scary. The idea of something looking normal when you can see it, and then being all evil and trying to kill you when your back's turned.  I was walking through an old graveyard and there was all these great big angel tombstones looking at me... it was kind of creepy.     Paul    730  22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks excellent, good work. Pity about Jason Takes Manhattan, the earlier drafts seem quite good.     Paul    730  01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
No problem with the GA pass -- looks like you're going to rule the roost with WikiProject Horror with all the major work you've done. :) My paper went well... 8 pages in 6 hours (double-spaced).  I just read the book throughout the day before writing the paper that evening and wrote down all the page numbers of things I could use.  It was just a matter of filling up my paper with support for the literary theme I was supposed to explore.  Now, I'm dealing with the last couple of weeks of school -- I'll be done December 11, but I'm not looking forward to the winter break.  Home's way too slow and full of pampering, which gets old after a while.  Probably will work on an article or two or a few dozen. :)  I'm trying to figure out how to prioritize my editing better... I'm too all over the place these days. I figure that I'll tackle an article in a major way every once in a while, like I just did for Body of Lies (film). I really want to get a personal project to FA status, but I don't know... I'm a stickler for details, and I hate to overlook some aspect of an article. Speaking of which, Superman film series got promoted... meh. It's nice that there's collaboration from some new folks, but there could be some improvement. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually do my papers last minute... I brought everything I needed home over break, but I didn't get anything done. I guess it's the pressure that helps.  I'm not too much for proof-reading beyond minor corrections.  I appreciate the compliment about the quality of new films... I'm really hoping that the "new wave" shows potential future editors how a film article should be written, as opposed to Plot and Trivia sections.  Also, speaking of film series, I noticed that comment about the Spider-Man film series and unprofessional section headings -- promptly did a facepalm.  I haven't really looked at what our friend the writer added... was there that much substance compared to the revision that was accepted for GA status? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still on my watchlist, but I don't quite pay attention to the edits there. Maybe one day I'll look and see if it's a mess worth undoing or even fixing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs Taskforce
I have had a look at the page and it says a consensus needs to be reached amongst members of the project. So do i need to hold a vote before i create the taskforce? Eddie6705 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, do you have any suggestions of where i could hold the discussion? Eddie6705 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club
Thanks for the compliment! For quoting, I think I've fixed the issues now. Just so that I understand you, the "logical" method is the one to be followed, right? Also, any other thoughts on the article? Academic studies is the next big step, I'd say... and the stuff that I've read so far is a damned challenge to digest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's good to know, because I've tried to write it that way. It somewhat bothers me, though, especially when I quote a part at length but can't set it up to write it like, John Doe says, "Hello."  I only inserted the track listing because I felt a little guilty about shutting down the soundtrack article.  Do you think the track listing and the album infobox should just be kicked out?  I know that I've exhausted Access World News for the album, but there might be something at Google Books to expand the prose.  And yeah, I really would love to set the bar for film articles down the road, especially in terms of academic studies.  I'm going to ask Awadewit to help me with that.  What I'm hoping for the studies is that they will comment on specific scenes, thus more screenshots could be implemented to back the new content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm considering that the interpretations section would have its own article, seeing all the resources I have. I'm not sure if there's much more that needs to be added -- I'd like to streamline the critical reaction.  Also, I want to find critical commentary for the DVD cover.  I swear I saw some comment about it somewhere... maybe it's in one of the links on the talk page.  Also, if you remember, Fight Club in popular culture was deleted, but the defending editor made some decent contributions with secondary sources which I'm trying to retrieve via Nehrams2020.  If you have ideas, they're certainly welcome.  By the way, when you did the DVD commentary for me, did you ever check out the other commentaries?  I know there was one about production design and another one about the writing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have the time to do so, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm just not sure if there will be substance or not.  I really wish that the film could be re-released with captioned commentary; I think captions are catching on now.  I recently saw  The Hoax, which had two captioned commentaries (though I didn't go through it due to lack of interest in improving the article).  If you have the time to help me out, I can return the favor via research -- dig up whatever topic you have present at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is the list you've been on. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeahhh, it hurts Wikipedia. :-P I just saw this today... ach.  Oh, well, good thing I only use Wikipedia to put awesome content about films on the top of search results.  If you type the dark knight in Google, we're the third item on the list (ignoring the news stuff). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really, really doubt that you're on such a list; you've gotten testy, but never antagonistic. Such an approach with the list seems to distract from the true purpose of Wikipedia -- I mean, there's always something to do.  Sometimes I worry about the dynamic nature of its structure, especially with a push for in-universe information (saw your comment about fictional characters on the guideline talk page).  In any case, I look forward to the commentaries you can provide!  Do let me know what I can do in return, such as compiling difficult-to-reach information for your implementation.  I'll be headed home this Tuesday, so I'll be similarly freed from my burdens. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Hi. I'm dropping a line. I hope I didn't screw things up here. I read the db message, deleted the article (w/o looking at the history), and them moved the talk page to an archive. I then moved the page from Faith Lethane to Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). If that messed things up more, I apologize. hbdragon88 04:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Horror Icons
Template:Horror Icons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Enter Movie 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Transformers
Hey hey! I have the 2-disc DVD, and I've just been noting everything from the behind-the-scenes featurettes. I hope you can copy off an image for me from one of the featurettes using PowerDVD. On Disc 2, in the "Their War" section, the Rise of the Robots featurette has a side photo of the Peterbilt truck, and how Optimus' body fits inside of it. I think this is a perfect illustration to show how they wanted to restrict mass shifting in the movie. I'd be very thankful. Alientraveller 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. It seems like the best image to use. We have so many free images in the article really. Mind, perhaps you could find images to improve the individual characters' pages. The Megatron page still uses old concept art. Alientraveller 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Alientraveller 09:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'm planning one last facelift for the article. Alientraveller (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So in general, do you feel that what I've done at the likes of  The Fellowship of the Ring or Batman Begins, and have seen others follow suit at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone or JFK inappropriate? Alientraveller (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly find the style of "Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen)" really strange. But that's why I guess WP:MOSFILMS offers different styles. Perhaps when you see what I have in mind, once I've done it, would that be ok? Keep in mind I always appreciate your advice: for example, I made the chronology in the Jurassic Park production section rougher when I saw your FAC comments. I hope you enjoyed your cousin's wedding by the way. Alientraveller (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Horror Portal
Thanks for filling in the portal for December. --Myles Long 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Screw your pass
I was reading through the appearances section of your Freddy sandbox... you don't much like the second one, do you? It gets like a passing mention, lol. I bought the complete Freddy boxset today, it was only £16 for all 7 films so I thought I might as well. Just watched the first film, it wasn't as good as I remember it? I think I've just seen it so many times over the years it's not as effective, I found myself kind of daydreaming during it. Nancy is still brilliant in it though, I'm surprised she's not more of a feminist icon. I can't be bothered sitting through the second one, but I'm looking forward to 3. I remember liking that. What's your verdict on 4 - 6, I've not seen those? I'm looking forward to New Nightmare, I hope it lives up to the hype.  Paul    730  22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The second one gets the attention it deserves... not to sound POV or anthing, lol. I'm always hearing that 2 has heavy homoerotic subtext or something?  He dreams about going to a gay S&M bar and then whips his coach to death or something?  I wonder what the logic behind all that was.  I thought the pool party massacre was entertaining.  Oh well, the first Nightmare had a weird ending.  I've heard okay things about 4 & 5, but I was worried about 6.  Isn't 6 a big Freddy origin story?     Paul    730  22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice the gay themes when I saw it, but then I wasn't really looking. I was more thinking "God, I miss Nancy."  I read about them later though in reviews, and I thought it was kind of strange.  I mean, if you're going to have a gay character, even an ambiguous one, then fine, but having lots of weird gay subtext which doesn't seem to have a point to it is kinda random.  Maybe Freddy possessing Jesse and making him do evil things is meant to be a metaphor for emerging homosexual feelings in adolescence?  That's fairly offensive if so.  6 sounds good on paper but I'm still wary, the Nightmare series seems to ellicit much harsher criticism than the other two series.  Speaking of, I also bought Jason Lives, it was only £4.  My tape of that got chewed up in the VCR, I was so annoyed.  I was like "You had to go and eat my favourite, you bastard!" :P     Paul    730  23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, the F13s just seem to be classed as enjoyable trash. They're not good quality and they don't try to be, they just are what they are: fun.  I think because the first Nightmare was so good, with solid writing and intriquing themes, the sequels come under more fire because they are expected to live up to it.  Also, everybody knows Freddy is a dirty sell-out, Jason is pretty respected.     Paul    730  23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He becomes cheesier and more of a clown in the later movies, he's not scary anymore. I think he's great in the first movie, I hate him in FvJ.  I also think the make-up gets worse - he's genuinely creepy and burned-looking in the first one, later he just looks like he has a rubber mask on.  I know Craven hates what he's become, I assume New was a return to form for the character.     Paul    730  00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we never really see his face in detail in the first film probably helps. He looks especially gross in the school dream sequence, the bit where he slowly closes in on Nancy is genuinely quite scary. I found Freddy frightening the first time I saw him - Tina's death and prior chase scene in particular. The quick shot where you see him under the covers is disturbing.  Paul    730  01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's your point? He looks pretty normal in that picture.  I dunno, a lot of his attraction, IMO, is more to do with Spike than any physical beauty.  He's good looking, but so much of it is Spike's personality.  I only started to fancy Spike in season three and four, when they showed his more vulnerable side.  He seems to have aged pretty badly these last few years - I hope he doesn't play Spike again in any TV movies as planned.  Apparently he's going to get off with Captain Jack in the next season of Torchwood.  I think we can expect about 968,858,455,345 slash videos to hit YouTube after the episode airs, lol.    Paul    730  01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno, that might just be Marsters, like I said he's looking aged lately. I hope he's not sick in real life or something.  Have you seen him in interviews?  He's so nice and hyper, like a little puppy dog.  It's kind of disgusting, because it's the opposite of Spike, lol.  I hear him speak and think "his American accent sound so fake".  Same with Alexis Deniof.  Guess that shows they're good actors, that their fake accents sound more real than their real ones.     Paul    730  01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. What film is that for, the first one? He's quite horrific looking in it. Honestly, as least Michael and Jason are considerate enough to cover up their ugly mugs. I was looking through that boxset I bought and there's like no special features at all, so I can't help you in that department. :( I know that Freddy was named after Wes's childhood bully, and that the whole film was based on a series of newspaper articles about teenagers literally dying in their dreams. We can probably find sources for that somewhere.  Just noticed, it's sourced on the NoES article.     Paul    730  13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did you upload a new version anyway? I don't see anything particularly wrong with the old one.  I've listened to that commentary for the first movie before, I remember enjoying it.  Wes Craven gives quite interesting commentaries IMO, he gives insighting information without being totally boring.  Plus it has Heather, yay.  I watched the trailer for New Nightmare (kind of pointless since I'm going to watch the film either tonight or tomorrow, but hey).  I'm looking forward to it.     Paul    730  16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, taking that into account, the new image looks better. Just watched 4 & 5, BTW.  I think I agree with the general opinion that they were... "okay".  They become more fantasy-oriented than scary.  I didn't like the murders in 5, I though they were really lame and ruined by crap SFX.  One thing I do appreciate about this series is the sense of contunuity; most of the films feature characters from the last.  There seems to be a theme of handing down the torch, Nancy to Kristen, Kristen to Alice.  Lol, Jesse just got left out.     Paul    730  18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It felt like they were just trying to make the deaths as ridiculous as possible. I mean, elaborate deaths are part of NoESs charm, but they overdid it.  Also, Freddy's oneliners were at their most cheesy and annoying.  I dread to think what he's going to churn out in 6.  I remember thinking the same as you in Halloween 5 - why the hell is Rachel so close with Tina and Sam?  Who are these people?  Maybe the characters in NoES 5 were already friends in the fourth one, and just became closer over the year or whatever it was.  Maybe they were Dan's friends, and Alice just started hanging out with them after 4?  Hey, it's a slasher movie, we need annoying teens with bad 80s hairdos.  I don't really like how reliant the sequels are on SFX.  The first one had Glen's death, sure, but I'm getting sick of all these rubbery prosthetics.     Paul    730  19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What will all be over?    Paul    730  20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering because the whole series will be over in two movies. I thought you were implying that I was hating the series or something, which isn't true. I find them entertaining, but they're more hard work to watch than the Fridays. They seem to go on a lot longer, and are more expostiony. Also, the line between reality and the dream world seems be disappearing in the sequels, which seems like lazy writing.  Paul    730  20:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Faith has been moved to Faith (Buffyverse). I hadn't even noticed.  Want to go argue about it? ;)     Paul    730  20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's probably some good faith editor trying to make it consistant with the other Buffy pages. We should really fix them as well so as not to confuse people, I'll go do the ones in the nav box now.     Paul    730  20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the moves didn't work, like Angel's? I don't know why.  I probably missed a few, at least Faith's not the odd one out anymore.     Paul    730  20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished watching Freddy's Dead and I have to say, that was the worst of the series. What hurts is that is actually does show potential, there's lots of ideas in it which could have been implimented much better. Things like empty Springwood, the dream demons, and Freddy's childhood are all quite intriquing elements, but the film just thows them away. Also, the potentially dark storyline of a woman coming to terms with being Freddy's daughter is completely undermined by the fact that he acts like a Looney Tunes character all the way through it. Like, even more than usual. I don't know, it was more entertaining than the second one, but I felt bad for how far the series had fallen. Jason X was silly, but Jason himself retained his dignity, Freddy didn't. BTW, most of the Buffy pages have been moved to "BtVS".  Paul    730  00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, you made your girlfriend sit through Freddy's Dead? That practically qualifies as domestic abuse! :P Aww, leave poor Jason X alone.  The costume was not that bad, I preferred it to the one in Part VI where he has silly yellow gloves.  Speaking of bad costumes, Kruegers clothes were in total pristine condition in 6.  I don't know why I stick up for Jason X, but it just doesn't offend me at all.  My friend is convined that Jason is gay because of the scene where he turns down an offer of pre-martial sex, lol.     Paul    730  00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What did she think of FvJ? I would have thought that was a strictly fanboy movie.  They looked yellow onscreen.  I can't remember them being as noticeable in later films, don't know if he still wore them or not.  I think it was the fact that they said to him "lets have sex" and he didn't go along with it.  Lol, we should put an LGBT tag on his article, he's out and proud!     Paul    730  00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not seen AvP although, as you know, I'm not really a fan of either series. I'm just glad they never brought Rococop vs Terminator to the big screen.  That's one crossover too far IMO.  I'm approaching these new Terminator movies with extreme caution.  I hate the third one, and without any of the original cast, it sound kind of sucky.  I always thought T2 3-D: Battle Across Time would have made a better third movie had they made it.  It had Robert Patrick in it and everything!     Paul    730  01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oooookay, the verdict on New Nightmare: it was inevitably disappointing because of how much I expected from it, but that's okay. It's easily the best Nightmare since the original.  In terms of directing etc, it was all executed much more professionally than the other sequels, we actually had suspense and (shock horror) character development rather than just lots of horribly cheesy dream sequences.  It wasn't quite what I expected; I thought we were going to have the original actors being killed in the manner they died in the films, and I thought there would be more interaction between Wes, Heather, and Robert.  (Where the heck did Robert go?  Did he turn into Freddy, the way John turned into Donald?  Does that mean Heather killed him when Freddy died??)  I loved how there were so many references to the original film, but because the story was so different, it didn't feel like a rehash (Heather said "screw your pass"!  Yes!)  I think the biggest downfall of the movie was the final act.  After being built up all through the film, Freddy kind of just dissolved into magic tricks again, but was much weaker than in the other films.  He got stuck in a door?  I mean, I hated it when he was an opnipotent cartoon character, but a door? Really?  I think the "idea" of Freddy was much more frightening than when he actually appeared.  Also, the final set was weird.  What relevance did a temple have to anything?  Another problem I had was Heather's son.  He wasn't particularly sympathetic, so I didn't really care about him.  Because Heather's whole motive was protecting her son, that was a flaw.  Normally I like mothers in film, that whole crazy powerful instinct thing, but I preferred it when Heather/Nancy was an isolated heroine.  I'm being a whiny fanboy though, because the movie as a whole was incomparable to 6.  I liked that Julie woman, she totally earned my respect by kicking those nurses' asses. :)
 * Oh, thanks for warning that stupid vandal BTW. I would have done it myself, but I couldn't be bothered acknowledging him.    Paul    730  15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Craven started strong, but finished running on fumes." - Yup, that's it in a nutshell. I don't know what to think about the whole Buffy thing... during the intial discussion I supported the idea of BtVS going to a disambig page, then having the show be called BtvS (TV series).  However, I didn't like end result, where it redirected to the show but still had the title, that seemed really clunky and pointless.  I kinda agree with both sides...    Paul    730  18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was all that great to be honest. I'm a great believer that less is more, the less you see of the villian the more effective it is.  Freddy was scary was he was just Heather's paranoia and bizarre claw marks, but when he was actually onscreen... he was pretty scary when he killed Julie, but I think he lost it in the final act.  His SFX were okay, kind of a drastic change.  He looked more skinless than burned, you could see his muscle and stuff.  It was okay, better than how he looked in most of the sequels, but the first one beats it hands down.  What do you think of it?     Paul    730  10:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just leaving the house now, I'll reply properly later. :)   Paul    730  12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I prefer classic Freddy. The muscle didn't look realistic to me, at least not at the end where you saw him brightly lit. Although what you're talking about, Craven's original intentions, sounds like it would be great in the article. :) I thought the trenchcoat made him look scarier... less like a clown. Yes, the scene where she accepts being Nancy was excellent.  The moment where she turns round, with the classic NoES music, and sees the old house, was abolutely chilling.    Paul    730  21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, what is this, Freddy's Fashion Show?? The glove... like I said, I'm a purist so I prefer the tradional glove. Wasn't it all weird and bony??  TBH, I don't really remember what it looked like, but it wasn't really a glove any more was it?  I didn't notice the pants or much difference with the sweater... Freddy looked darker overall, but apart from that.  He seemed more demonic, like a real boogeyman.  I think the plasticky make-up ruined it a little... not to be a party pooper or anything. ;)     Paul    730  23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, even though it was different, I think it suited New Nightmare... since it wasn't really the actual canon Freddy, they could afford to change it up a little. I agree that the face was too dry.  He reminded me a little of a Buffy demon who was actually based on Freddy in the first place.     Paul    730  01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't. Will look out for it on my second viewing, sure it won't be hard to miss.  I'll probably enjoy it more on a second viewing, since I know what to expect and will therefore not be disappointed as I was a little the first time.  I think there's a Craven commentary on the DVD as well which I imagine would be very interesting... I'll jot down anything relevant for the character article while I'm listening to it.  (Not tonight - too tired and my brain is melted from seeing Southland Tales earlier today.  Worst fucking movie I've ever seen.)     Paul    730  01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bwahaha, the Freddy boxset is only £14 at Zavvi/Virgin!~ZytheTalk to me! 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Google's telling me that it's the same as 32.44 dollars.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Break
I'm sure you're already aware, but the NoES website is pretty good. It's got info on most if not all the novels/comics as well as articles and interviews (there's an article about the glove you might wanna use). Just letting you know in case you didn't already.  Paul    730  12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew it would be your first stop for sources but it couldn't hurt to tell you. I actually wasn't looking for stuff for you, I was just looking for my own entertainment. :P They have some cool shit on that site... and a lot of the comics/novels are canon apparently.  You might want to casually mention that on the article.     Paul    730  15:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you could just put something like "According to the NoES website, these comics are canon"... I don't think that really compromises the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and the readers would appreciate it. But if you don't want to, I won't push for it.  I just found it interesting that some of the literature was canon since most franchises don't count EU stuff.  I was actually thinking about removing some the "EU isn't canon" comments from Faith's and any subsequent rewrites of Buffy articles.  Stuff like Tales of the Vampires are canon, I know they are, but I can't find any rock solid sources.  Just vagues indications that Joss-stuff is canon... but then what about that Angel story that Joss wrote years ago that contradicts the show and everyone seems to have forgotten about?  It's just too messy?  I'll clarify that Season 8 and After the Fall are canon, since that's been stated explicitly, but maybe just leave it ambiguous for the rest?  Urgh, Buffy canon makes my head hurt.  Why can't Whedon organise his stupid franchise better like Lucas did.  I'd love to conduct my own personal intervew with these people to get them to confirm everything I need to know for this website.  And isn't F13V canon?? I thought it was.  And der ain't no crazy fans about here. (< that was meant to be a reference to Ned in the first Friday but I guess it doesn't translate to text)  :P     Paul    730  16:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, I actually know what qualifies as offical Buffy canon - the TV shows, Season 8, After the Fall, Fray, Tales of the Vampires/Slayers, and Buffy: The Origin, but I don't have any sources explicitly proving it. :( Personally, as a fan, I take a Star Wars canon approach to it; the above are G-canon, the comics/novels which fit into continuity are C-canon, and the rest are S or N-canon. You said that you don't count some stuff as canon, what's that?  As I told Zythe, I only count 1,2 and H20 as canon in the Halloween series, simply because the quality or continuity of the other films aren't good enough.     Paul    730  17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, how can New be canon with the other two when they don't even happen in the same fictional universe? I don't know why, but I count all the Freddy and Jason movies as canon (except New, which isn't meant to be canon)... I didn't used to, but after getting into comic books, I grew to forgive the ridiculous stories.  Jason in outer space is pretty mundane compared to some of the wacky stuff the X-Men get up to.  Even the films I'm less fond of, like Freddy's Dead and Jason Goes to Hell, I still count the basic events as canon in the universe, if not the details (like Freddy's behaviour).  That doesn't apply to the Halloween movies for some reason though, I prefer to think of it as a tight little trilogy, none of the others happened.  I dismiss T3 because it doesn't live up to the first two.  I used to not count Anya's death in Buffy as canon, just because I hated the way it was done.  I've since come to love it though, it's so abrupt and powerful.     Paul    730  18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See, now you've confused me with the science of New Nightmare. Canon is defined as "those events, characters, settings, etc., that are considered to have existence within the fictional universe."... but the NoES canon was just a film series in the New Nightmare universe.  The films came to life sure, but the events of those films were still fictional.  So it's not really canon in the "Freddyverse".  Don't get me wrong, from our perspective, 1, 3, and New are a little trilogy (the Craven/Nancy ones), but in the Freddyverse the events of New never occurred.  They didn't really "merge"... the films just came to life.  ???  Yes, hopefully Sarah Connor Chronicles will retcon away the complete and utter pointlessness of T3.  Here's hoping for a T-1000 cameo!  How come you deleted your Satisfied Customer section?     Paul    730  23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, stop it, canon is complicated enough without including weird crossovers with the real world! There are two Nightmare timelines, the canon "Freddyverse" as I'm calling it (really the FreddyJasonandpossiblyAshverse since the events of the Friday the 13thand possibly Evil Dead series are canon in it as well... let's ignore Ash for now) and the separate "Newverse". In the Freddyverse, the events of the films are 100% real - they really happened, they're factual events; there was a serial killer called Freddy Krueger who was burned blah blah... Then the Newverse where the films are fictional and there was an evil entity who was captured in the films. In the Newverse, the entity brought the films to life but they were still films. When John turned into Donald at the end he wasn't really Donald, he just looked and behaved like Donald due to the entity's actions. Heather was just playing Nancy, she wasn't the actual canon Nancy who died over in the entirely separate Freddyverse. From the Freddyverse's perspective, Freddy didn't cross over to another reality after being killed by his daughter and before fighting Jason Voorhees, he was just trapped in hell or whatever. Freddy and the entity are separate... well, entites, one just impersonated a fictional version of the other. Lol, I know you're just going to argue against all that for the sake of it. :P    Paul    730  23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. Both timelines are "canon" but they're distinct and I don't think they crossed over the way you're implying.  What I meant was that New wasn't canon with the Freddyverse, which is the "main" canon, kind of like Earth-616.  The Buffy movie is canon in it's own universe, just not the later Buffyverse established by the TV show.  Only thing is, Resurrection is technically canon the H20 timeline, a fact I choose to ignore. :P BTW, changing subject slightly, what's your interpretation of the first Nightmares ending?  It said on the website that Nancy never in fact woke up, that she never brought Freddy out of the dream world, and that the whole third act was a dream.  I don't really like that explantion, what's your take?    Paul    730  00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How did Marge die? Why did she get absorbed into the bed, what happened to her?  Was she burned to death or killed when she was pulled through the door?  I like your explantion better than the website's... if the whole thing had been a dream then why was Freddy being defeated by sledgehammers etc.  I always thought that Nancy blacked out from exhaustion after Freddy disappeared, and then the final scene was her dream.     Paul    730  00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that ending has always confused me and anyone I watch it with. It's not even as effectively shocking as Carrie and Friday the 13th, which are the classic dream scene jump endings.  I like our explanation though, I think we figured it out.  More questions, having just watched F13VI - do you think Tommy killed Pam in Part V?  How do you explain the difference in his personality, besides retconning?  I really like Tommy in Part VI, I think he's pretty funny, the scene where he had his face in Megan's lap had me laughing.     Paul    730  01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that he killed Pam and that's why he was back in the sanitarium in Part VI. Having watched Part VI, though, I don't think he killed anyone.  Lol, I like Tommy but he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds and hundreds of people because he brought Jason back, it kind of takes away from his heroism because it wouldn't be happenining it he'd just left well alone.     Paul    730  02:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it wasn't anywhere official, just Fangoria's speculative timeline.    Paul    730  02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The "commentary" for the latest Freddy vs Jason vs Ash. Might be something of interest in there for you, they talk a little bit about Freddy and Jason's personalities.  Paul    730  17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Research?
What "research" am I supposed to be doing? I hate to inform you but I left school behind many, many moons ago. I added TFC since you, for some odd reason, do not trust/like Spoilerfix or Kryptonsite for info and I happened to be on TFC, looking up future episodes when I came across the writer and director of the next episode.

Coinicedentlly I've noticed that every single episode I tried to add for Season 7, from Spoilefix and Kyrptonsite happens to be the exact same ones that are already and in the same order. Interesting how that came to be..... So I guess Spoilefix and Kryptonsite are only unreliable for you. ;-) Too bad. Robinepowell (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you take a look at…
Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)/archive1? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • contributions 01:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Future films department...
...is now on the project sidebar and in the new announcements section. Just thought you'd want to know! :) Regards, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Charmed
Unfortunately I don't read Charmed magazine and Paramount went vanilla on the DVDs, so they come without any commentaries (and as such, I will not buy them anyway.) So I think if such a source exists, it could be in some sort of magazine fact file, which I know from reading a few scans can be comprehensive, but... I guess it was foolish of me to think Wiki would let it sit there, sourceless.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When they weren't wasting the budget on random helicopters, Matrix-style levitation and Janice Dickinson :P.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight
Can http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12518 be used as a resource? joshschr (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones GA
I know you helped a lot on the original Indiana Jones cleanup a while ago, and I know from the Lost World: Jurassic Park that you have a critical eye for things most people don't see. I would appreciate it if you reviewed Indiana Jones for GA when you have time. ColdFusion650 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that you...
...are #366 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits?~ZytheTalk to me! 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alientraveller is #340, and I am a distant third at #556. Hmm, I wonder if this includes AWB edits... I've gone on a few spam removal sprees, but nothing significant like I've seen with AWB. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am too easily distracted by Chirstmassy things. Although, I think it would be a good idea to get it ready for FAC before Torchwood season two airs, and the inevitable fury of episode-by-episode recappers descend upon the page.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it starts simultaneously in the UK and US like Jan 8 or something. Only the US date has been announced, iirc.~ZytheTalk to me! 13:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed! We all have lives to lead. :) I got home earlier this week, and I actually have not been editing Wikipedia as much as I expected.  I've been researching for internships and scholarships instead for the coming years, and I've also been reading The Golden Compass.  The film itself will be captioned on the 21st, so I'm looking forward to seeing that.  I don't usually read a book before seeing a film, so it should be interesting for me.  Maybe I can write up a "Differences" section! :-D  Happy holidays to you as well, and I'll look into the edit counter thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I just finished watching the New Nightmare commentary. I didn't write notes during it, I wanted to enjoy listening to it without distractions, but I'll go back and jot down any relevant info at some point now that I know what scenes are relevant. There's actually not as much Freddy character stuff as I thought, but there's quite a bit for the film/franchise articles. Apparently, Wes wanted the final act to partly take place in the classic Thompson house, but couldn't afford to use the set/location. I think if that had happened, then perhaps moved into the boiler room, the final act would have been better? Or would that have been to similar to the first film? The funny Hell-temple still doesn't make sense to me, Wes said the architecture is meant to represent human history. He also admits Freddy died too easily, apparently the tonguing scene was an afterthought to try and remedy that (that part makes me feel sick).  Paul    730  01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Freddy chat? :( BTW, thanks for detailing sources on Michael's page. I usually have a respect for Wiki-policy but their rules on images annoy me.  I mean, obviously an image should serve a purpose and not just be decoration, but all this fair-use copyright crap... urgh. :P    Paul    730  21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Laptops are better, they don't have those big chunky keyboards. :P Who finds Freddy Krueger sexy, honestly? They'll be releasing a boogeyman swimsuit special next. ;) It's quite an interesting little addition to the article, it wasn't from the commentary, they were little mini-docs... like I said, there isn't too much character stuff in the commentary, it's mainly about the film being a metaphor for censorship and stuff.  Apparently that horrible doctor was based on and named after the head of the MPAA, lol.    Paul    730  09:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My computer has been acting up lately as well. It's relatively new but I spilt water on it a few months ago (clumsy idiot) and it's never been the same since.  My internet always crashes, I don't know whether that's the laptop or my internet connection... I'm so ignorant when it comes to technology, I can't get my e-mail to work either. :/ No, I hadn't noticed the Nightmare thing, I don't watch that page.  I only recently stuck the Freddy and the franchise pages on my watchlist because I knew you were working on them.  The article doesn't look half bad... the adaptation section seems like it belongs on the franchise page.     Paul    730  15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ironically my internet just crapped out on me just as I got your message, lol. I think I'm going to try and take my laptop back to the shop... a computer less than a year old should not be breaking (might not mention the water thing).  Buy a new computer?  Aren't you supposed to be a poverty-stricken college student? ;) Yeah, I noticed the image was from the wrong film and thought that would be a problem... was the original image even from the original?     Paul    730  18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject, I've been meaning to ask you about Jason's pop culture section. I know I was originally a pusher for such information, but what exactly is the criteria for references in other media? I've seen you revert people for adding stuff like "Jason is mentioned in Programme X Episode X", but there's already info like that in the section. Some references, like the South Park one, don't identify him by name, merely by his physical appearance or the company he keeps (other movie killers like Freddy). What purpose does this info serve? A lot of it doesn't have context, it's just well-disguised trivia. I think we should tighten this section up a little, because it's the article's achilles heel IMO.  Paul    730  18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if we can find some context, some reason for why such-and-such writer decided to reference the character (like Kevin Whatshisface for Scream, the whole Jason/Pamela mix-up) then I think we can keep it. Actual appearances are okay in theory... but what if he's not identified by name?  What about the Simpsons army recruitment video where it kinda looks like Jason and he has a machete and he looks the same as in his other Simpsons appearance with Freddy, but they don't confirm it's him?  I thought even the tiniest jump to a conclusion is OR?  I agree that we shouldn't have any "references" unless it has context, but the criteria for "appearances" still isn't rock solid.    Paul    730  21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed some of the info... including the South Park appearance sadly enough, since that really was hilarious. And it was so obvious it was him, since the whole point of the story was seeing existing, copyrighted, fictional characters. *sigh* I don't think we can justify keeping it though, until a source turns up. Can this be used to identify him in Robot Chicken?  Some more of the info probably needs purged but I wasn't sure.     Paul    730  23:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One episode identified him, the other simply had him with other identified characters, the words "Jason Voorhees" were never mentioned. It's irrelevant now, since we have a source.  Yeah, I would've moved all that crap to your sandbox but I wasn't sure you'd want me mixing it up with your Freddy info.     Paul    730  00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, did you see that Clark Kent/Superman merge discussion is still going on? I decided to throw in my opinion, since most of the arguments were just lame. Lol, somebody said in response to Smallville being reason enough to keep it, that Smallville sucked and was therefore invalid. I thought that was funny, what an idiot.  Paul    730  01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Smallville episodes
Hey, what happened to the Smallville episodes/link to the episode article? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I thought they were a bit more encompassing. My bad, I guess. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hook-up
Dude, i would really like to know the music that was used in the NBC series, Life. Hook away, me boyo. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lol, thanks, you too. :) And yeah, I do celebrate Christmas, Mr. PC, I'm officially Roman Catholic although really agnostic. Wow, it's only four days till Xmas, this year has actually flown by so fast it's scary...  So what are you doing?  I'll probably be going down to my scary aunts house, where I'll no doubt be grilled as to "what I plan to do with my life" and how my "girlfriend" is (really my friend - relatives-in-denial like to jump to conclusions).  Oh well, at least the food'll be good and I have "Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)" to look forward to.  Might even go out for a booze afterwards if my friends are up for it.     Paul    730  00:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I do like the whole season of Christmas, I wish I could spend it with just my mum and not all my other stuck-up relatives. :/  Plus I'm going to miss Shrek 2, which is on that day. :P Yeah, I did notice the discussion at WP:EPISODE, they're making a lot of the same arguments that I used to make.  I dunno, I tend to take WP:NOTE with a pinch of salt... even though I do cite it quite often in AfDs and stuff, I agree with it being a guideline and not a policy.  I think people should apply it with common sense; obviously something like Buffy's house isn't really notable, but a major character who perhaps isn't mentioned in the media a lot might be.  A good example is Wesley Wyndam-Pryce - that article doesn't establish a whole lot of notability, but has lots of OOU info from interviews with the creators.  Would merging that article and losing that info because it's not notable be better for the encylopedia?  I don't think so.  Like I said, you should use common sense... unfortunately not everyones common sense agrees with each other, lol.  Anyway, don't let it get you down, we've already had Alien go on a break today cos of Wikistress, we don't want to lose you as well.  Have fun cleaning your dog BTW, I think I'll stick to my self-cleaning cat. :P    Paul    730  00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)



is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

"Printed Source Fetishist"
I knew you were a kinky bastard. Seriously, what is Gwern's major malfunction? I am sorry i brought the damn thing up. Bte, you might want to gander this edit by him/her/it (hey, the account could actually be staffed by a killer robot - you just never know); it seems like some DIY tweaking of Wiki policy, and not a "minor" edit at all. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LMAO, there's a userbox in the making: This user is a Printed Source Fetishist... ;)   Paul    730  08:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdose on cranberry sauce or cookies!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: I Am Legend
Yep, I saw it last night. You can see my thoughts about it here. Did you get to see it yet? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could tell you, but it would require spoiling the ending of the Matheson book. Do you want me to say so?  Also, the trailer for The Dark Knight looked great -- just wish I had a transcript for it to hear the Joker's lines.  I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it.  I don't think that the grounded look could have been done any better -- it's not too grounded, like the intent for Year One with a regular car for the "Batmobile" under Aronofsky.  I really wonder how Nolan could interpret other villains.  And geez, get a new computer already!  It's too quiet around here only two-thirds of the trio! ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the book, the creatures were more human in appearance -- basically, vampires. For whatever reason, the filmmakers didn't want to involve that element.  So basically, the "Anna" character (no Ethan) was a more evolved form of a vampire that looked normal and could be in the daylight.  In the book, Robert Neville is in a house in suburban Los Angeles, keeping the vampires at bay with garlic.  He's not a scientist, but he tries to learn, testing the blood and figuring out how the vampires work.  He comes across the "Anna" character as the first living human he's seen since the epidemic.  He's sexually repressed, so when he should have tested Anna's blood, he wanted to avoid that dark truth.  When he does get to it based on growing suspicions, he's knocked out.  Later, there are "normal" vampires that come to the house and kill all the out-of-control vampires around Robert's house.  They take him to their headquarters, where they're working on starting a new society (as Robert never found this out before because he didn't feel safe going far away from his house).  But Anna frees him and gives him cyanide pills of some sort for suicide because the civilized lower-echelon vampires were calling for his head, since he had killed vampires during his time at the house.  So the book ends with "I am legend", referring to the switched perspective -- instead of humans viewing vampires as a legend, vampires view humans as a legend in this new society.  So yeah, it was definitely a lot different from the film.  The film incorporated the dog better as a character, though, where the animal appeared too briefly in the book.  And yeah, trailers are usually not captioned -- there's a UK website out there that captions trailers, but they're not so quick on updating.  I'll have to check to see if there's a trailer for TDK.
 * Good luck with dealing with Geek Squad -- from what I've read, they're a scam because you can find help that you need online with a little savvy. As for Fight Club, I'd say that the writers' commentary would be great, yeah.  The article got a great copy-edit from that editor, so hopefully we can implement new content in a similar flow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you back. And I enjoyed I Am Legend too, though I've not read the book (but I know of all the changes). Alientraveller (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Friday the 13th (franchise) article
My god, fantastic work. You are truly a treasure for people like me who love to read various film articles. Thank you. 76.10.142.164 (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction
Thanks for your past contributions to the discussion of this page. I've just copied the article to a sandbox at my user page    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SocJan/Sandbox , giving it a far less POV introduction and a new title along lines that others have suggested. Please have a look, see what you think. Your comments would be most welcome. SocJan (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)