User talk:Erik/Archive 9

Re: The Hobbit
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, but perhaps it shouldn't be so film-focused. Perhaps it should be called Middle-earth in other media and discuss everything from Tolkien's own illustrations to the stage versions. I'll see what the Middle-earth WikiProject thinks. Alientraveller (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a similiar article entitled Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. It could be moved and thus include detail on The Hobbit. Alientraveller (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews
Happy New Year, Erik! Given your vast contributions to film pages, I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them: If you have the time, it'd be great if you could look over those two articles and assess their flaws and weaknesses. Thanks, and, once again, a Happy New Year to you! — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 03:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Duck Soup. I've listed this article for peer review because, even though I and other editors have contributed much information and references, I'm certain that there are other aspects of this classic film that have yet to be covered. I'd like to hear feedback from you, so that I can get help in improving this (and other Marx Brothers films) quality.
 * Princess Leia Organa. I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite a lot of references as of now, lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Comments and suggestions are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles.


 * Cinemaniac responds: Thanks for your comments! I'll go ahead and start researching both topics in order to find more offline references, so that a balance between offline and online citations can be achieved.  In that regard, however, I may need your experience to help guide me through it.  Thanks again. :) — Cinemaniac (talk  •  contribs) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting Started
Hi... Thank you for the note on my talk page, and I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I've been familiarizing myself with the formatting and markup on Wikipedia pages and have been experimenting with my user page to get a feel for things.

I did an edit of Across the Universe (film). Towards the end of the plot summary, it looked like a whole passage was missing, and it just generally needed cleanup. Doing this also made me aware of the Beatles Wikiproject, which I have also joined.

If there's anything in particular you'd like me to do, I'd be willing and able. My grammar and spelling are really quite good (if I do say so myself).

Thanks again.

--Faltarego (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter
The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Promises
Please do not verifiable content from articles. You removed quotes from David Cronenberg, the film's director, and Roger Ebert, who is probably the most well-known film critic in North America. What you removed is not a disclaimer. I don't see how the section you removed violates WP:SPOILER. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Yeah, that test cite was probably more of a case of point-making on my part too. Pixelface was questioning the lack of an actual citation for the primary source used for the plot section, so I thought I'd provide one, even though I agree it is unnecessary. I'm not sure where the discussion can go from where it is now; as you say, the arguments have been done to death. I drop in to it now and again, but I lack the time to devote to it that other participants seem to have. They're thrashing it out on the spoiler talk page for some reason, but I've so far refrained from joining that particular debate.

I watch a lot of television, but I've used the curent hiatus caused by the writers' strike to catch up on a bunch of films I never got around to watching the first time. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had been on my radar for a while, ever since it was trumpeted loudly on AICN, and I finally got the opportunity to give it a viewing last night. I'm glad I did; it's largely excellent, certainly one of the more purely entertaining films I've seen recently. Similarly with Live Free or Die Hard; though I wasn't expecting much, it surprised me by not being completely stupid. Len Wiseman was a surprise here (considering his filmography). Unlike some action-film directors, he did an excellent job of mounting some of the better-written action sequences in an imaginative-yet-coherent manner. I also enjoyed The Prestige a couple of nights ago. I read the novel when it first came out, but the film was sufficiently different that any overfamiliarity with the story didn't ruin things. I have Rocky on my list of films to watch, and as long as the strike continues I'm sure I'll get around to it sooner rather than later. Best regards, Steve  T • C 14:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea; it's going to remain a consistent target for a while, probably until it's left theatres. Best regards, Steve  T • C 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops; thanks for catching that over on Appreciation Index. I'm not 100% familiar with WP:DYK, but I was meaning to check it out when State of Play starts filming. I'll go have a look at it now, thanks. Best regards, Steve  T • C 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The grapevine" tells me that filming on State of Play began on Tuesday. What's annoying is that, if true, no reliable source has seen fit to report that fact yet. They probably think it's not worth mentioning or something. Bah. Anyway, that's not my question. My question is, can you see any sites on the first couple of pages of this list which could be considered a reliable source for casting information? I can't (they're probably getting all their information from the imdb), but your more-experienced eyes might spot one. Thanks, Steve  T • C 14:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Don't worry, I know not to recreate the article until Variety or THR or someone says so; I was just expressing my annoyance that if filming has started, neither has seen fit to say anything. :) Best regards, Steve  T • C 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfft. Nine days ago, according to Working Title. Steve  T • C 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, while I suspect not many people know what the phrase means (text only link, but maybe not 100% SFW), it was originally chosen when I wasn't planning on sticking around here for too long and so I thought it was about time I opted for something less puerile. I was lucky to get this name; a previous usurpation attempt on "Steve" by another editor had already been unsuccessful. Hope you didn't mind the mass-replacement I performed on your talk page. All the best, Steve  T • C 14:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Goodness, what a dirty name it was. I'm not childish am I? It's good to still be a child at heart you know. Alientraveller (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with that at all. I didn't mean to indicate names not based upon "real" ones were childish, btw; were "Steve" to have been unavailable I'd have happily chosen something "nicknamey". I also suspect "Alientraveller" won't be getting its own definition on a less salubrious page of urbandictionary any time soon :) - Steve  T • C 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone through a bunch of talk pages this morning, but I'm not going to do them all; mainly the ones which are either still active or where I've contributed heavily. I think I'll probably leave it at the ones I've done now. Steve  T • C 14:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, that Cloverfield revert. That was pure clumsiness on my part. I had the wrong edit window open and reverted a completely different change to the one I'd intended to zap (a clunky embiggening of part of the plot section - though I've decided to leave it alone for now). Steve T • C 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mist
Yes, I'm very excited for the new season! You know the people on the rescue ship aren't there for them! It's gonna get messy. As for the section I created, I mainly did it because I just saw the film again last night shortly after finishing the novella and picked out all the differences. I left out quite a few and included the ones that were character related. I could condense it down if need be, but I think it fits in the article nicely. Moviemaniacx (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I got busy at work and was unable to change it back. Thanks for taking care of that for me! Moviemaniacx (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Untitled stephen sommers project
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No biggie
No pun intended by the title. I figured it was an accident. My new computer is coming tomorrow (hopefully), so I'm excited. It has a quad-core processor, with 4 GB of RAM so, god willing, I should be rockin'-n-rollin' when it comes to speed.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't got it yet. FedEx came while I was at school, but I talked to the driver and he said he would come back around at the end of the day to drop it off for me. So, hopefully he'll be here within the hour.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex Tse
I see this is the guy who wrote the latest Watchmen script. I'm a fan of Alan Moore's stuff. I have yet to watch V for Vendetta and I'm not sure if I will watch Watchmen but it's great that someone is attempting to turn it into a movie. The article on Alex Tse looks good. I would maybe put his unproduced screenplays in the Credits section, because it's always interesting to see what the screenwriter is actually working on at the moment. I've noticed you've done some excellent work on many film articles, even one on Body of Lies (film) but that the one you did on Tripoli (film) got deleted. Hopefully it will be resurrected if that film ever gets off the ground.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I include every script a Screenwriter has ever touched in the credits section just because I want to know most of the time, placed under the sub-section "Screenplays (unproduced)", but I've been thinking there are those scripts that are on their way to being produced and those that are I guess--defunct--? I don't know if that's the thing to always do, but in the articles I've been interested in I've done that, because it is the reality and it's good to see how things actually work.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagline
Hi Erik. I notice you removed a tag from *batteries not included. I'm going through an AWB sweep at the moment, should I pick up ordinary tags as I'm going along, just leaving the notable ones? Regards  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Project guideline WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines, so that question is answered. I'll adjust my AWB to pick out tags. Regards again.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

who is Janek Sirrs and David Schaub?
I actually have no idea, I was reformating an earlier edit by a new user...come to think of it I probably should have checked the source. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  06:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They're effects and animation people. Sirrs apparently worked on IAL. Cheers!

The President's Daughters
Yes I inquired about this article because to me it seemed a bit fishy that were going to do a movie when I have heard that they have no intention of doing any at the present time. I think that it was good that it was nominated for deletion because it didn't really have any reliable sources. Headstrong 345 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Headstrong 345

Certificates
Nope, I think you've covered anything I would have added to it. My biggest argument against it has always been that you can find PG-13 movies with very similar details as R-rated movies (i.e. Strong violence --> Extreme violence), yet we don't know what exactly pushed the MPAA over the bar of PG-13 and into an R-rating. I film might get an R-rating if it says "fuck" a certain number of times, but that might be the only thing "adult" about the entire film. If that was the reason it got an R-rating, then it might help to know that instead of just saying "It was rated R", especially if it didn't receive such a mature rating in other countries who are more liberal with what they allow.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You catch this edit at WP:FICT? I thought it was an interesting way of defining what readers really want when they come to Wikipedia, and what articles should really be about.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think your argument is just about fine. I think sometimes the very discussion of a film's tone makes a general certificate redundant eg. Fantastic Four was aimed with families in mind, whereas Sweeney Todd has scenes of lots and lots of blood and the studio knew it. Alientraveller (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

mentoring
I recently got a message from Headstrong_345 seeking to have me mentor him in things Wikipedian. Honestly, I don't think I am qualified to do it, though I am flattered as hell at the request. I think I have a ways to go before before I have the editing equanamity to serve as an example for anyone. because of this, i am inclined to want to find the fellow a good mentoring substitute. You and Bog and Alientraveller immediately came to mind. Don't feel compelled to agree to it. I've already suggested WP:MENTOR, but I thought a bit of personal attention for the new user might be the spoonful of prevention that prevents the pound of cure later on. This brings up another matter. I seem to recall that you had an editor review some time ago. I am pretty sure I know what my strengths and weaknesses are, but maybe I should ask for that, to confirm them, and get some insight on how to improve both categories. Even though it would effectively be painting a bulls-eye on myself for everyone I've managed to piss off over the past year or so. I am thinking that 14 months is long enough to wait to get some input in a group setting. Thoughts (from any of you)? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text
I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield
Hey thanks for providing that statement, at first I thought it was just a random statement someone pulled out of there ass. But hey thanks for correcting me :D Much appreciated. Empty2005 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Na it's all cool, i just believed some fan boy user made a random statement before the article was blocked from newly registered users. But hey the article does need to maintain standards, so thanks for correcting me again :D! Empty2005 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Eye
Thought you might find this interesting. Scroll down to Section III of the edit. I got a laugh out of it. Jauerback (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the notice at WP:AIV instead of a sockpuppet report. Based on the content of his edits, though, I blocked him as a sockpuppet. Useight (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey, how come you're not an admin yet? I can nominate you if you would like. Let me know. Useight (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you wanna do it? I've heard it' a fucking hard job. Oh, sorry about the usage of the F word, I just couldn't find another way to describe it. Anyway, I think it's gonna be hard because you often have to keep an eye on vandals, which should be easy. I think the hardest part is to close AfD, RfD, TfD, CfD etc. and stuff like that. I know for sure you won't abuse it, but are you sure you wanna? I choose not to become one, because I believe I have more future in YouTube than here. I'm mainly here to help, and get information. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I say the same thing. Erik you got to be an admin :). Blasziken master no it is not a hard job. Well first it would be a hard job later it would fine. Most important if the person is willing to learn he/she can do anything. So blaziken tell me about your future in youtube. I like to know :). --SkyWalker (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

TDK
I feel it would just confuse readers or new editors if JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis were not credited for Rings or Narnia. I definitely think while odd we credit Jerry Robinson for TDK, overall it doesn't hurt to credit Kane and Finger. Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunset Boulevard (2008 film)
Wasn't certain if you were aware of this one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday
Have you seen the trailer for Doomsday yet? It looks like it's going to be a cross between a Mad Max type of film and The Hills Have Eyes.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Either or, by The Hills Have Eyes I mean that post-apocolyptic (in Hills that was post-nuclear fallout) cannabilism that surcumbs survivors of those events. Plus, I think I saw some mutated people, which also helped to fuel that Hills vibe that I got. But, more than anything, I got the Mad Max feeling watching it all, especially Thunderdome. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out. I thought it was interesting to see Marshall go from genuine monster-esque movies to this more action-y movie where the monsters aren't physical beasts but just crazed psychopaths.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I read that. Maybe they'll rethink this idea until Batman and Superman (more Superman than anything) can get their franchises in working order. I still see issue with have 3 different Supermans present in media at one time. Let Smallville finish and then worry about what you want to do with the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are redlinks unnecessary?
I put them there with the intent that eventually there will be several pages all pointing to say, Jim Uhls as a writer or Jeff Cronenweth as cinematographer, and being able to see what pages point to those people's articles could aid in creating their article.Quickmythril (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aguirre
Yes, thanks again! I incorporated information from the articles into the "Historical Accuracy" section, and used one article to slightly expand the "Screenplay" subsection. I still think all six articles could come in handy when writing the previously requested "Themes" section, but I still haven't gotten around to doing that yet.-Hal Raglan (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowfinger
Hey Erik, how's it going? Have you got any other sources for Bowfinger, that are not already used in the article? I need some additional sources in order to flesh out the Production and Casting sections, specifically. Any help would be appreciated. Drop me a note on my talk page if you think you can help out, Cirt (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the positive feedback! Really I just thought that the Production and Casting sections were a bit skimpy, but I had used up all the info in the sources I already found to add to those sections.  I'll check out what you put together.  Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Okay, re: User:Erik/Bowfinger, these are just cites, I can try to find some of the articles myself, but can you provide text for some of them, particularly if it deals with stuff not yet covered in the article? Cirt (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you so much, and I will. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

My Silence is Broken
I have finally figured out how to and that I need to talk to other users. Sorry I have been ignoring you. On my account page (User:Djbj16) I made a list of all the film articles I have created. You can look through those articles and tell me if I'm doing anything wrong. User:Djbj16 User talk:Djbj16 3:14 PM, 17 January 2008

Hi again. I discoved that there are two article about the same film each under a different name because the film changed names during production: Bachelor No. 2 (film) and My Best Friend's Girl (2008 film). My Best Friend's Girl (2008 film) is the correct title. How do I merge them? Djbj16 User talk:Djbj16 7:25 PM, 22 January 2008

When I create movie articles I usually use a plot from the movie's IMDb page. Is this ok under Wikipedia's policies? Do I need to cite it? Sometimes the plot is listed as a potential copyright violation but most of the time its not. What should I do? Djbj16 (Talk) 5:10 PM, 24 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Christopher Walken filmography
Would you do me the favor of taking a look at the FLC? I'm in a discussion regarding the usage of box office info within a filmography, and I want to hear your opinion on the matter, especially as we don't really have too much precedent in this area. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Peer Reviews
While I am finding off-line sources concerning Princess Leia easier to obtain, finding such references for Duck Soup at my town's public library are proving much more difficult. I wasn't given access to "Google Scholar" and similar search sites, so I wondered if you might be able to help me out in that regard. — Cinemaniac (talk •  contribs) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield?

 * Why did you leave a message saying that the Cloverfield talk page was not a forum talk page. Other guys there on the talk page are posting stuff about motion sickness about the movie,etc. Not about how to improve the article in any mention.Okay dude. Rio de oro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry dude, I will obey the talk rule. I'm not being an a** hole dude okay. I just saw other guys talking about other crap there on the page okay. Rio de oro (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanna remove the headnote on Doomsday then fine.
But I still refer to the Superman movie as Doomsday, and I really doubt I'm the only one. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you forgetting that a lot of searchers use brackets to find something specific? You look like you are. Please think about that before removing a dabnote. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield Plot Summary
Erik,

I thought you'd be the best person to ask about this. I want to change the plot summary back to the one from earlier today. Normally I would just be bold, but after the plot summary was changed, then there were several edits that other users made to that one. I'm not sure if I'd be acting in good faith by ignoring the work done by them today. That being said, the plot summary as is is fairly poorly written, including some minute details that don't matter, and skipping over some things that should be included. I'm not sure if you have read the summary (do you not read summaries if you haven't seen the movie?) but I guess I'm asking if a revert (I wouldn't revert, just do a copy and paste from the old version as to not eliminate other changes) would be in good faith. Thanks for any assistance. Gwynand (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Watching movie articles.
Damn it man, you're everywhere. Anyway, when you watch movie articles do you ever worry about the movie being spoiled? I never watch articles about upcoming movies, and I'm happy to know that there is rarely or never discussion about movie plots on this talk page. Sometimes, but not that often. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield Talk need to be archived?
I was thinking the cloverfield talk page is getting large and hard to navigate, might be time for an archive. I'm actually currently unsure how to do this, trying to learn. I see you often take the task of archiving movie pages, though I'd bring this up to you. Gwynand (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvel movie universe
Funny, we know have IPs trying to remove the films from the infoboxes. However, I know Marvel is aiming to set Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Cap and Ant-Man in their own films before they make the Avengers. There is the chance that film will not get made, but in Marvel Studios's eyes, they are making films in the same series. Alientraveller (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

310 to Yuma
Feeling free to ask you about this one! All indications were that the film was a "solid" western, though nothing spectacular. I was pleasantly surprised to discover it was actually excellent, probably the best of all those I've seen recently and listed on my userpage. Even more surprising, considering I thought Mangold's last film, Walk the Line was ultimately poor and a waste of some very good actors. What did you think? All the best, Steve  T • C 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In a way, it was probably that simplicity I liked. Any complex themes the film tackled were certainly well in the background, for once put aside in favour of "merely" a good story, expertly told by all concerned. Above all, it entertained me. I could watch Bale and Crowe bounce off each other like that all day (and Ben Foster deserves mention too; he really nailed that part). Steve  T • C 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit hit-and-miss I thought, but endearingly haphazard, with a genuine point and a few good gags. So it looks like I'm pretty much with the consensus on this one. Six IQ points out of ten. Steve  T • C 00:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a new section to my user page.
Please check it out and tell me what you think. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield monster article
Please be more careful before reverting. I'd rewritten the Parasite section to remove OR, then you reverted blindly and added it all back! I've undone your last edit to fix this. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know you didn't do it maliciously. On the link, thing, though, is the one you're removing not reliable? If it's reliable, it should be included. Multiple references are generally encouraged and help to establish notability. For an article facing AfD, this is especially important. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thought it was odd you'd missed out on Abrams' backstory for his beast. Will you be seeing it? I won't, I might get dizzy from the camera. I might rent the DVD. Alientraveller (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to just put it on the mainspace now. Alientraveller (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you read what it says, it does not call the monster Cloverfield: ""Cloverfield", which is the case designate given to the creature". Notice the word "case". It does not label the monster at all. That is why he only refers to it as the creature. Cloverfield is the name of the location and is designated as such at the beginning of the movie. Location, formerly known as Central Park, now known as Cloverfield, i.e. clover fields cover areas that were bombed. Central Park was completely bombed. This is a matter of English grammar. If you have any questions, you can contact me, but you cannot construe the above to imply what you think it says. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And as I demonstrated, you cannot connect the two. They would not go to great lengths to identify it as the "creature" in everyone quote if they didn't mean to call it the "creature". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Cloverfield is clearly mentioned as the film's title and why it was given that. The monster is never named in the movie, nor in any of the material. It is kept that way as part of Abram's marketing technique. THAT was mentioned in many of the links by him. And please read what I wrote over at the Talk Page of the Creature. Manhattan Project is not the name for the individuals who partook in it. It is the name for the event that happen and its aftermath. Thus, you cannot logically link the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Abram's info on it was already listed on the movie page. Look at the title information and why it was named Cloverfield. They were originally putting out random names that were deemed to be mysterious. Cloverfield was the name of the bombing of Manhattan. That is even mentioned at the beginning of the movie. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. Its a common mistake. People think that "Frakenstein" is the name of the monster, even though the monster never actually had a name, and only ever addressed himself by saying "I should have been Adam, and not Satan." Very few monsters are ever given names. When I saw it listed, I had to go through every single link to try and find how "cloverfield" was used, using copy and paste, to ever see if anyone says "this is the name of the creature" or something similar. Not once. However, "creature" is used hundreds of times throughout the various articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I originally went to the page trying to find the Manga, because I find that kind of thing interesting (movies with other kinds of media to elaborate on the story). I saw a lot of crazy information and decided to start source checking. A lot of stuff was added out of enthusiasm for the movie and not careful reading. I am amused that people think a satalite falling off of Cooney Island would be far enough out to see to be at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the evidence you cited (Wired Article) is not sufficient evidence as it has no official backing, but is sinmply the assumptions of a reviewer. Therefore, it has no factual basis as a description of the creature. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WTF
Heath Ledger, dead, that seems totally random. Have you been reading about it?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was watching a video on Break.com and someone had posted a comment on there about it. I went to movies.com and sure enough it was right there. I just read the article sourced in the Ledger page...I think Mary-Kate Olsen killed him. Come on, if you're going to kill yourself with pills (not the first choice for men committing suicide either), why scatter them all about the room first? This screams fould play, no matter what the police say.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. What happens if everyone likes Ledger's Joker as well? Wouldn't it be something if this all turned out to be false? Someone misidentified Ledger, and he's just incommunicado right now. It's just too shocking to think that this happened so suddenly, and without warning (at least, I never heard anything of a warning in the press). Makes you wonder if is method of getting into the Joker's personality screwed him up.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the 'Nole's here, I"ll post here for both of you... I was shocked by this, and tipped off before a lot of the media got it, but was away from home. By the time I could get on, news was spreading about it. Tonight I've seen both of you doing great work to help keep the train on the tracks, and wanted to compliment you both on it. As to the outcomes, I suspect that what will happen is that they'll edit #3's script to reduce the flashbacks and focus more forwardly. If/When a #4 or #5 hits and they want a new Joker, there are two EASY situations: One, it's also a new Batman, and thus no one cares as much, except some die-hard Ledger fans and fan-boys who protest in Ledger's memory (and watch, those will be the same fanboys objecting to this in the name of Nicholson). Two, they find a very similar actor to Ledger, who takes it seriously, and they simply spin it as being done in a way 'sensitive to the fans and the memory of Ledger'. The hard thing is if the cast is all the same, then it's tougher, but it can still be done. Where they'll really be in trouble is if Ledger signed off on his likeness in #3 for flashbacks, and they CGI and body-double that in. That could lead to a lot of angry fans. Ultimately, I think this will be fine. And it could have been a much worse final role to play. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC)I just seem them as needless spaces that don't do anything but take up space (no pun intended). If you look at things like the infobox template and the citation templates, they have a lot of extraneous spaces beside everything. I don't know if they did it to see better (I don't see them worse when there are no spaces) or if the spaces were originally only there so that people know what was what in the template diagram. Oh, and it was an accident that I reverted your rephrasing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it wouldn't be the first time they replaced someone in this series, that's for sure.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * that's true too. On another note, I could use some other eyes on Gotham City. There's an editor there who seeks to add a Picture of NYC, since Gotham has been compared to it. However, he's using his own judgment as to what constitutes similarity. Finally, any daylight shot would look like metropolis form a similar angle... Thanks guys. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys really handled this sensitively. Obviously I thought it was vandalism to TDK's article, but something about dying in NYC sounded too specific, so I found out for myself. It is tragic, and certainly sad it'll be the only time we'll ever see Ledger's interpretation of the Joker in one film. I definitely am curious to see whether Nolan would feel it appropriate to recast such a memorable character, or just leave Joker out considering his role is purely to cause hell. Shame, I was hoping to see a Nolanised Harley Quinn. Alientraveller (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can't recast such a memorable actor. Still, maybe in a few years time I can look back and not really think about how near to the film's release he died. James Dean is an icon and all, but I didn't think about the car crash when I saw Giant. In case you were curious, I wanted Eva Green for Harleen (she'd really like to play an out-and-out psycho one day). Alientraveller (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to see Catwoman and/or Robin. Maybe Robin could start the new trilogy a decade after Nolan and Bale wraps theirs. When I heard David Tennant wanted to play the Riddler too I jumped for joy. I mean just look here Alientraveller (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Catwoman and Riddler work very well in Nolan's world; one's a burglar/socialite with possible ties to Falcone (Catwoman: When in Rome), another as you said is a more subtler psychopath thn the Joker. I was curious as to why he also called Penquin unrealistic: he's just a fat mobster. Now I realise the director was actually keeping Two-Face under wraps, because then we all thought it'd just be Harvey Dent in TDK. There's always the possibility to bring back Ra's too, as Neeson was amazing. Yeah, I concur about Robin: it's a strong emotional relationship, but why would Bats let a kid out with him? That's why I suggested him being introduced in a new film with a new style in years to come. A shame our creative minds are being spurned by the death of a young man. But I'm sure Nolan would move on too. Alientraveller (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heath Ledger and The Dark Knight
First off, I have no problems with the reference to Entertainment Weekly. Your rephrasing of The Associated Press is terrible. If you rephrase it properly, I will keep it. And regarding the reference Animation--Animation THEMSELVES believes that Warner Bros. will have to alter their marketing campaign for The Dark Knight. Nowhere did it say that Warner Bros., the studio or any of the films director have stated that the marketing campaign will change. This is only SPECULATION on ANIMATION's part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euges116 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your paraphrase of The Associated Press made it seem like that Heath's death was PLANNED to boost the marketing campaign. I'm not rewriting it, you're free to. I don't like writing stuff, just "correcting stuff." As to the Animation thing, again, it's an independent source. If the studio said they are changing the marketing campaign, fine. Who's the independent source? He or she isn't verfiable. It could be some dude on the street who gave a "tip" to the magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euges116 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor
Do you know of any non-web browser based software than is designed to edit Wikipedia (kinda like a HTML editor)? Especially any that can update in real time? ~ QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace
quantum, and I hope you know what solace means. To sum it up, the producers said "[Camille (Olga Kurylenko)] is someone who challenges Bond and helps him come to terms with the emotional consequences of Vesper's betrayal". So there. So this is the first title to refer to Bond's monkey genes? Alientraveller (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, someone clearly forgot how old Fleming's books are. The whole plot of Casino Royale got a modern facelift, why can't they do the same for a title? Alientraveller (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Terry Gilliam is so unlucky. Shame the Fates took Heath Ledger to do that. Anyway, thanks for the comment regarding all the hard work on the article, it looked quite weak before I began stewarding it. I wasn't aware you were just waiting to get the title rumours out of the way. Alientraveller (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I've been taking real care of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Prince Caspian. Alientraveller (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I've been a bit more careful and reanalyzed the tide of Thursday's news articles, it turns out we missed the name of the new SPECTRE. Green Planet? Why, what a fiendish way to hide criminal activities. Alientraveller (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Reservoir Dogs
There certainly is useful trivia, it's just hard to find a source other than the trivia section at IMDb. I don't have access to many resources outside the internet and the film itself. Maybe the DVD commentary? Unfortunately I don't own a DVD of Reservoir Dogs. Then again alot of the trivia is garbage.--The Dominator (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
These worthy of comment, that aren't on my watchlist:
 * 10,000 BC - Looks daft but stirring, like 300.
 * Cloverfield - Because of the monster really.
 * Hamlet 2 - I love Steve Coogan.
 * Hancock - I LOLed at the trailer.
 * Jumper - Might be fun.
 * Speed Racer - The Wachowskis have never put a foot wrong, IMO.
 * The Wolf Man - The original is one of my most favourite movies, it's so moving, I really hope this is fantastic, One Hour Photo was superb.
 * Valkyrie - I admire Bryan Singer and Tom Cruise (the latter professionally), it's a great story.
 * Wanted - I thought the comics's plot was more interesting, but Night Watch was interesting. Alientraveller (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Cloverfield is far and away the best movie I've seen in almost a year. It is what good filmmaking is all about. Run, do not walk, to see this movie. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK
Thanks; hope yours goes through too. I know it doesn't really mean anything, and it's not why we're doing this, but that doesn't mean we still can't enjoy the feeling of satisfaction for a short time. Oh, and I'll still be playing catch-up on my watchlist well into tomorrow, but I have to say that I did just notice this, which genuinely made me chuckle. You go tell 'em how it's done. Steve T • C 22:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, ta' for that. I didn't realise the listing even existed. Steve  T • C 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need a YouTube account or something.
If you don't already have one, I want to discuss movies with you, without filling out your talk page with our conversation, so do you have a YouTube account? You don't need to be able to hear to have a conversation with me at all, all you have to do is send me a message through YouTube. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback
I have granted your request for rollback. Please make sure you are familiar with how rollback works. The tool is only for reverting obvious vandalism - any edit, no matter how awful or biased, that could possibly have been made in good faith should not be reverted in this manner. Never use rollback on the edits of regular contributors and most of all, use common sense. Remember rollback privileges can be revoked by any administrator. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism.--Docg 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk/Fight Club
Just wondering, do you intend to write about any similarities between the Hulk and Tyler Durden, especially because of Norton playing both guys with anger issues? Zak Penn and Total Film have mentioned this now. Alientraveller (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Total Film is print only. Anyway, he was directly talking about the Hulk, but he did agree to TF's comparison to Fight Club. Btw, I edited into American language, when this gets pasted into both articles:
 * "It's about primal emotion, there's that part of your brain, the amygdala, which is like the fear center, that's very, very primal, that's like been in use since long before we were human in a way."
 * I'm working off scans on the SuperHeroHype boards, and I guess this is more relevant to the Hulk movie article. I wouldn't be wrong in assuming Norton is your favourite actor though? Alientraveller (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a favourite actor or actress really, I just like everyone except the ones I dislike, if you get what I mean. I'm confident Norton will make Hulk a proper film star. And yeah, I guess that content isn't really worthy for Fight Club. Who knows, maybe Norton, a comic book fan, will reveal he signed on for the part because he thought Durden would be a good chance to prepare for his dream part of Banner. Who knows? Alientraveller (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TDK switch
works for me. ThuranX (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Re
Yeah, I know what you mean, do you just do film AfD's or AfD's in general?--The Dominator (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out my nomination of Mischa Lecter, another character that doesn't have much useful info and just recaps the plot, I don't know if you've read the books and/or seen the films, but the character is fairly minor, and a list of characters for that series already exists as List of minor characters in the Hannibal series--The Dominator (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction
Would you recommend it? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh the section you edited just now has Netflix at home could you mind explaining what that means? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, Notes on a Scandal really is a big pile of melodramatic arse, isn't it? The actors try their hardest, but even they can't disguise the laughable script and overcooked direction. Steve  T • C 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. :P Steve  T • C 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield_(monster) Afd
Nice job rescuing the article. I think it's funny that the bulk of the improvement was performed by people who initially wanted it deleted. -Verdatum (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Transformers review
A new interview with Simon Furman was posted on TFW yesterday, and I thought Furman gave the film a few criticisms which really summed up the fan base's niggles with the flick. Would it be unneutral to give him his own quote box, or should I just add this into the prose? It's hard to decorate these reception sections.

"'It was a shame that given how much latitude CGI allows to create whole worlds, we didn’t start [at Cybertron] or look in there at some point [and] see some robots in their natural environment. [...] It would [...] have given more urgency and poignancy to events on Earth. I’d have given the likes of Jazz, Ironhide, Ratchet and Starscream extra stuff to do, and more layers to their characters. It felt like whatever they [...] had [was] drowned out in all the explosions and noise. If only they’d ditched the whole Maggie Madsen/Glen Whitman computer expert/geek storyline, which went nowhere.' &mdash; Simon Furman"

Alientraveller (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice clean-up of Near future in film by the way! Alientraveller (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding that stub, I think the early press release had not indicated when the film would be released, and eventually it worked out to a release for March 2009. Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

peer review
I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)
Generally I try to stay away from quote boxes, but could you perhaps point me to a couple Featured Article-quality film articles that have tasteful use of quote boxes? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I used that model and added a couple quote boxes. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ice Age 3
I have removed the db-repost tag from the page since the objection raised in the AfD was that the article 1) doesn't have source 2) hasn't bee officially announced and 3) doesn't even have an IMBD page. All this has been address in the new article.  Obviously the old AfD never intend to forbid the creation of the article all eternity (even after the film is released!), but only until the film become more imminent.  If you want to nominate the article for a new AfD (it seems like you were in the middle when you realized there was an old one) that is fine, but don't expect the same conclusion. Jon513 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * use instead of  to renominate an article for deletion.  The default of  is "2nd nomination".  Jon513 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (sorry about accidentally messing up the page). Jon513 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly
Thanks, Erik, I appreciate it. I'm glad to see you're still diligently working on film articles; I've moved on somewhat, but I'm doing well, thanks. :) Take care, María ( habla con migo ) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunshine
Thanks for backing up my tag on Sunshine; you get a few (or a lot of) fanboys out there who just have to incl every miniscule detail from a film & BLAM!!!, the thing gets bloated, right? Or they think they're Ernest Hemingway & that excessive words are better than being succinct. BTW, have you listened to the commentary track on the DVD yet? Do it, one of the best I've heard & be sure to listen to Boyle right around the point where they find Trey, there's a startling revelation that I didn't pick up on... BUT, it's not something that should be incl'd in the summary... Tommyt (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm NOT Hemingway! :P I think I probably meant Ayn Rand, she's pretty durned wordy! :P Tommyt (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to know? Not gonna watch the film? Read no further if I've persuaded you to watch it first: Ok, here goes: Boyle reveals that Trey did NOT commit suicide, he was murdered by Pinbacker, who made it look like a suicide. Evidence? When Mace takes one of the scalpels out of the drawer, there are already 2 missing. He uses one to murder Corazon in the burned out garden & leaves the 1st one w/Trey. Totally slipped by me every time until I listened to Boyle's track. Tommyt (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, perhaps we should. I just can't seem to figure out how to fit it in w/the way it's currently written... Suggestions? Tommyt (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Let's leave it at that, it'll drive the fanboys of the article CRAZY!!!! Also, about the odd space/time ending, we should probably have a sect on the discussion page 1st, see what others think. The subj leaves a TON open to interpretation & speculation & any other -tion word I can think of... Tommyt (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you removed my comment about the Sun's gravity? The entire premise and scientific aspect of this movie is beyond ridiculous. Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some assistance is needed, please
Hello, Erik. I hope you can clarify some questions I have about the use of images in Wikipedia. User:Tnblk Ji keeps removing photos I've added to articles without a clear explanation why. Can you please look at Image:MaxSteiner.jpg and Image:JaneHorrocks.jpg? I think I've provided the correct rationales when uploading these images. His objection to their use appears to be although the images identify the subject of the articles to which they're attached, the articles are not about the images per se (i.e., the Horrocks article is about her, not the play, and the Steiner article is about him, not the CD on which he's pictured). Is that a valid reason for deleting them? Images is one area of Wikipedia where I seem to be lost - I can't quite understand the explanations about their use, so I've looked at other uploaded images as examples and tried to follow their rationales when uploading new ones. Thank you for any explanation you can offer me. MovieMadness (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Not only does he keep removing the image from Jane Horrocks, but he keeps deleting a full paragraph detailing her theatre credits without reason. I asked him to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page but he hasn't complied. Thanks again. MovieMadness (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would the image of Jane Horrocks at be considered "free"? It appears to be a screenshot from The Amazing Mrs Pritchard. Or would its use be valid only in the article about the film? Thanks again for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunshine Plot edits
So what you have just demonstrated, is that a certain number of details are perfectly fine. Guided by the information you point me to, the plot should be between 400 and 900 words. The previous edit to the plot I had made, increased the plot description to 804 words which is within the bounds of the guidelines. These additions were neutral and relevant to understanding the plot. There were numerous other details no more or less extraneous than the additions I added. You however, decided that my particular details were indiscriminate. You are biasing the plot to include information only you wanted and this goes against Wikipedia policy. Why don't you let the details I added sit for awhile and see whether other contributors agree or disagree, or let the content evolve naturally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.74.235 (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the desire is to reduce the plot description -- which has been recommended by other contributors -- why not expand on the the reduction I made? There were a lot of details in the prior plot (and some of the grammar was not correct) and the reduced-size plot edit I made was meant to be as succinct and unbiased as possible. It may have been a bit too short, so why don't we work on expanding it just a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.74.235 (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alvin
I was wondering if you could direct me to the Cast section guidelines so I could clean up the Alvin and the Chipmunks movie page. I haven't seen it myself, but the article is a mess, and I plan on doing what I can to not make wikipedia looks like a 12 year olds playground. The cast section seems as good place to start as any DurinsBane87 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Clear on Hulk
good call, didn't know about that one. ThuranX (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruft?
I think this is utter cruft (we don't use DVD covers as per FU). What do you think? As always, the rest of the gang can contribute - your comments are always insightful. - Arcayne  (cast a spell)  19:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Expanding articles on upcoming films
I have no idea what sources are considered legitimate and I am not really interested in becoming a more serious editor anyway. I would like some advice, though, is how to make sure the basic film info I get from IMDb is ligitimate. I had thought that IMDb is reliable but then I noticed that you deleted my addition of Armin Mueller-Stahl to the cast of The International (film) because IMDb is not a reliable source. Could you give me some reliable websites? Djbj16 Talk 6:05 PM, 9 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaner release date
There was a question on the talk page of the Samuel L. Jackson/Eva Mendes film Cleaner (2008 film), asking when the release date is. IMDB still points out that it came out last year, and other sites point to 2008, which I'm more likely to believe. Do you have any reliable sources that mention when the release date is? Just curious so I can update the information and send a notice to the IMDB page. Thanks in advance. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's what I thought. I'll keep an eye open on it, thanks again. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club
No worries. I actually used it to check something earlier today, so when your FA nomination cropped up on my watchlist I thought I'd check it out again. Looks good. Peanut4 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure you don't want it to pass? I'd support without unintended themes, because I feel the article is a featured article, and in all likeliness you're planning to spin-off interpretations too. Alientraveller (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

slash and burn at Daredevil (film)
Hey, I gave this article a MAJOR cut down, because it was, (and still is) one of the worst written Marvel Films. Want to help rebuild it? I think we can do so easily. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just reasonable, not GA or FA. It's really like, C class, not B right now. You can't polish a turd, though. ThuranX (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday
Re the film article, is it the norm to list a film's year after its title in prose? E.g. mention Bullitt, Mad Max, etc and have the year of the film in brackets after? Just curious. Geoff B (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgive my inexact message, I meant bits like this: He cited as influences the films Mad Max (1979), The Road Warrior (1981),[9] Escape from New York (1981), Metalstorm (1983), The Warriors (1979),[10] Excalibur (1981), .  Is it the norm to list the film's year along with it's title? Sorry for my lack of specificity (probably not a real word, that). Geoff B (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, that clarifies things for me. I'll keep it in mind for future usage. Geoff B (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield (creature) infobox removal
Mind explaining? It was capped from an official released clip, and one bad image doesn't mean the infobox should go. Will (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahoo Movies has a clip of that exact scene. (linky) Will (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I capped a version from the 720p feed. Much better quality. Will (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Referring to film series in prose
You said "but I reserve the right to refer to the articles as "XXX film series" in prose" in a recent rename discussion. Here is another shorter way to refer to a film series. The Superman (film series) films are great! will get you...The Superman films are great! Why type "series" again? :) - LA @ 01:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From Within
Hello, Erik! In response to your question, I removed "Filming took place in Maryland in fall 2007" and added specific locations (which you removed). That Variety originally reported Jake Weber would be part of the film's cast seems inconsequential, since he isn't. The comment "Papamichael desired to make From Within in the tradition of The Shining (1980) and Rosemary's Baby (1968)" isn't supported. The link for the July 31, 2007 edition of the Baltimore Sun no longer is valid. Does it really matter that filmmakers originally planned to finish production in time to release the film for the Sundance Film Festival in February 2008 (sic), since the festival was held in January and it wasn't shown? All of what I removed seemed to be a lot of filler added to make it look like the article had substance. Meanwhile, you removed the extensive cast list I added - why?

No offense intended, because I realize you created the article, but as it stands now, it's a bit of a mess that in my opinion falls far short of Wikipedia standards, but I'm not going to engage in a discussion about its merits with you, because I have no vested interested in the film or the article. I stumbled across it only because I edited the article for the director, which had been copied verbatim from Variety. If you feel so strongly about it, please feel free to keep it as it is, but considering your admirable dedication to the film project, I'm surprised it passes muster with you. Sincere best wishes, MovieMadness (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me an IMDb cast list that extensive and specific (i.e., with all character names) and a list of film locations probably was submitted by someone closely connected to the film. Who else would have such information? And if IMDb is that unreliable a source, why does every film article cite it?
 * You stated, "As for the link to the Baltimore Sun, the link is indeed dead, but that does not make its information invalid." What good is a link if it's dead and therefore the alleged reference proves nothing to current readers looking for a substantiation of facts?
 * Perhaps the film project should consider banning articles about films until they're actually released, since they tend to be cluttered with inconsequential trivia anyway. That's just my two cents. Thanks! MovieMadness (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Twilight (2008 film)
If you want to be more detailed on the characters, that's fine. But it's hardly "more detailed" to remove all but the two main characters. I think we should keep the list up, at the very least. Andrea (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I can see why you wouldn't want to use a Wikitable, fair enough. But it seems silly to list a few words of information about each character, when they are already linked to the novel pages (which will provide a more complete description anyways). I'm also using my knowledge of the books to say that none of those characters will likely just be in the background in the film. Andrea (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Characters section for Sunshine (2007 film) seems to be well done, but it will be very difficult to get such information about Twilight before the movie is released. I'll continue to look for reliable sources, though. Andrea (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolverine
Schreiber as Sabretooth makes more sense than Stryker, and Danny Huston looked like a young, slim Brian Cox in Children of Men. I look forward to seeing a less stupid Creed. By the way, I bought myself a book on the X-Men franchise from 1963 to 2006 (it was a Last Stand tie-in I guess). Alientraveller (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I have CK on DVD: there's a good documentary on it hosted by Barry Norman. As for the main X-Men article, Paul is planning a rewrite. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured you've been pretty busy - as I have been moderately. I do like the idea of Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, just because the character himself has a sense of humor, and Reynolds seems to be funny even when his films aren't.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw you request the closing of the Fight Club FAC, which reminded me that I owe you a writer's commentary for that film. Yeah, I see a lot of article's redirected now with people citing WP:NFF. I'm hunting for an internship myself, for this summer. I have an interview lined up with DISC Village on March 7. Hopefully, I will get that one. I have to get on the ball with the GRE and appling for grad school.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What is it still missing? Just the some expansion in the production section. How much further did you want to explore the thematical section?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of a TFA with the sequel's release: it's one thing to have a Simpsons episode on the day the movie came out, but suffice to say, we'd get trolls who think Wikipedia is an advertisement. That said, I will make a priority to get the article to FA, by soaking up the remaining resources on the talk page and rewatching all the DVD feature. There's also two books on the film's making we should find. Alientraveller (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be the FAotD on the day The Dark Knight comes out. I could be on any day of that same week, or the day or so after. How many music articles have been put on the front page the day a new album for that band came out? It's like saying that there isn't a real reason to have a fictional topic on the main page because whatever reason you give is most likely going to be associated with "advertising" for it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have roughly 5 months to get it all done. It'll probably take about 1 month to go through the FAC process, if we're unlucky (longer if we're really unlucky). I've seen some articles go through inside of a week. It really depends on how much of our ducks we get in a row before the FAC process. I say we need to get the article information finished by April/May. Then, between when we finish and the beginning of June, we should have someone detached from the project thoroughly copyedit the whole article (my suggestion is Jim Dunning. He helped Alien on Transformers and is doing a fine job for me at Smallville (season 1)...that is, if he's willing to c/e the article). I would leave the remaining time for the FAC. Hopefully that will be done before July, in which case we just pick a day. It's ok, to me at least, if it's FAotD after the release of TDK.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Kane
I added the latest revision, but I don't think you're going to be able to find very many secondary sources as I didn't see any. I was reading through the list and was interested in seeing this one: "A famous cheat code from the PC game The Sims for one thousand simoleans was "rosebud". Additionally, if your Sim pursues a career in Hollywood, he is eventually approached to create a sequel to Citizen Kane, which randomly makes or breaks his career if accepted." I had always used that code for the game, but never knew where it came from, so that was interesting to see. The movie's currently in my online queue, but I won't be getting it for a while. Good luck finding any of the resources and expanding the article. It will be part of the core list of articles within the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a very interesting project to tackle; good luck wading through that one. And if you need any help with it, even if it's just grunt work, just drop me a line. Steve  T • C 11:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my brother has the special edition DVD box set they put out a while back; it might yield some useful information if I can prise it out of his grasp. I seem to remember his saying that the commentary from film historian Ken Barnes was especially good. Let me know when you're ready to tackle the article and I'll see if it contains anything you can use. Steve  T • C 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing you'll need to deal with is merging Charles Foster Kane. Alientraveller (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said academic studies are useless! I just prefer historical books myself to personal opinion documents off the internet, from a time and energy standpoint. Alientraveller (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the BFI book by Laura Mulvey. You wouldn't mind me adding to the draft now I've got it and taken notes from the DVD documentary? Alientraveller (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, just under the Anatomy of a Classic ref on your bibliography page. Alientraveller (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo Joe!
Aw, thanks, I forgot about the DYK. Ironic eh? Murphy chose another toy line (something I'm glad for of course), and because of that we'll get TF2 and G.I. Joe next year. I hope my faith in Mr. Sommers has a similiarly sucessful investment to my faith in Mr. Bay. Alientraveller (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you hear JLA is dropping Superman and Batman? It's existence (from a continuity pov) won't bother me now. I always saw Joe as a younger brother to Transformers (ironic, as it's even older) and liked it when they popped up in the TF: Generation 2 comics. Admittedly, I grew up with Action Man instead: it's an American film. But it does sound like a fun movie, lots of globetrotting. As for gimmicks, well, G.I. Joe didn't have robots, time travel, alternate dimensions and spaceships, but it did have advanced military technology, genetic engineering and NINJAS!
 * From a wiki pov, I do look forward to documenting Hasbro becoming a character-based company like Marvel, which evolved beyond comics. Alientraveller (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen good fan art of Wonder Woman wearing armour. I'd love to see her in that direction. Alientraveller (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Whoever did the wiki page did a pretty damn good job." Alientraveller (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2007
What are your favorite movies of that year? I will list you mine, I must warn you it's a very long list. I will also name the categories: My most hated movie of 2007:
 * Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – Fantasy
 * Live Free or Die Hard – Action
 * Rush Hour 3 – Unknown
 * Transformers – Best
 * Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End – Sequel
 * Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium – Children's
 * Saw IV – Horror
 * I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry – Comedy
 * National Treasure: Book of Secrets – Adventure
 * The Kingdom – War
 * Shoot 'Em Up – Shooting

Dan In Real Life

So tell me, Erik, what are your favorite movies of 2007? Also, do you agree with any of my personal opinions? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you haven't already see no country for old man, it's about an old man fleeing for his life from a murderer.
 * As of your favorite movies, I'd agree that Ratatoullie is a great one, but I personally like FG better than the Simpsons. I didn't like Zodiac personally I found it boring, I liked how much the word fuck was used in American Gangster and Knocked Up. And Bourne Ultimatum surely is worth watching it got the awards for a reason. I haven't seen the rest. So do you have any respond to my favorites? I'm tired after all those hours of the awards, so I'm going to bed now, good night. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this with me. The discussion is over. Thanks for your time. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did the Academy really award Golden Compass best VFX? I wasn't aware those polar bears were made up of twenty thousand pieces. Bad luck to Kevin O'Connell too, I was really hoping it'd be his night for such an evocative soundtrack in Transformers. Still, at least Ratatouille won Best Animated Film. Alientraveller (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Poor guy; I was genuinely rooting for O'Connell. Not because he deserved it, but purely after hearing an interview with him on the Today Programme the other day. He reckoned if he didn't win this time he'll probably have to wait until he's 80 and they chuck a lifetime achievement award his way. Steve  T • C 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scandalous
It wasn't the acting which bothered me, at least from the two leads. As I said before, they tried their hardest to make it work, it was just everything else (and I mean everything) which conspired against them. Dench was very good, as was Blanchett (to a lesser extent, though her character wasn't as coherently defined). But the director seemed to think he was making a tough detective thriller of some kind; the writing and astonishingly DRAMATIC music left me in no doubt that this was intended as a lurid melodrama, a big-budget soap, rather than a credible character study. IIRC, Blanchett's character in particular made decisions which were designed purely to drive the histrionics. In the simplest terms, I just didn't buy it. All the best, Steve  T • C 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Production
Your reasoning makes sense; I guess I have a tendency to think of "production" as the act of filming itself and any other production-y details (producers, studio, distributors, etc.) - So you'd have gone for something like:

==Production== The film is being made for New Line by Solaris and... etc. ===Development== ===Filming=== ==Release==

Yes? Steve T • C 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, some massive reorganisation going on over at New Line. I'd heard it was on the cards, and presumed it was why no decision had been made on a Golden Compass sequel, but I didn't quite expect it for some reason. A shame for Pride and Glory, which sounds interesting (hell, an on-form Norton could make reading the phone book compelling), though I hadn't even heard of the film until I read that Variety article I included the other day. All the best, Steve  T • C 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of NL, well it means The Hobbit has been delayed, but this may allow a space for Jackson to direct it... Alientraveller (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A question
Hello, Erik! I just did extensive work on The Cat's Meow and have a question re: the year to which it should be attributed. It debuted at the Locarno Film Festival and was shown at two other festivals in 2001 but did not go into commercial release until 2002. IMDb lists it as a 2001 film; I think the correct year is 2002. Given the facts, what is your opinion? Thanks! MovieMadness (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)