Talk:Halloween II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halloween II is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Halloween II is part of the Halloween movies series, a featured topic, which means it has been identified as part of one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

	This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Halloween II has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Halloween II was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for October 2006.

Contents 1 Update 2 timeout review 3 Novelization 4 Article

[edit] Update

I have rewritten/updated this article in a similar fashion as I did Halloween (film). Added sections on production, reception, criticism, etc. Deleted content that was apparently copy and pasted from other sites on additional material in the "alternate version." Added pictures. Please copyedit and critique. Dmoon1 07:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timeout review

from Time Out magazine's film guide edited by tom milne second edition 1991, p277 reprinting original magazine review by David Pirie:

"92 minutes"

The first Halloween had such an ancient maniac-on-the-loose theme that it was easy to miss just how original the film was in its ue of the new gliding Steadicam to prolong audience identification with the villain. Rosenthal is no Carpenter, but he makes a fair job of emulating the latter's visual style in this sequel (co-scripted by Carpenter) which takes up where the earlier film left off. The action is now largely set in a terrorised local hospital, while the villain has so palpably becom an agent of Absolute Evil that any assocations with contemporary sexual violence are fortunately diminished. The result won't make any converts, but Jamie Lee Curtis is as good as ever. Zzzzz 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorporated some of this, thanks for your input. Dmoon1 13:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novelization

The author of the novelization mentions the HII one here [1] which might have something worth incorporating - his relationship with Carpenter and Carpenter's producer's and his script for H4. Although one of the FAC people thought the article is already too long... Шизомби 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

"Can't have one sentence paragraphs".....An interesting comment, seeing as though the paragraph in question was two sentences.

I'm concerned that someone is having a sense that they "own" the article here. NickBurns 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous user's edits were not changed. The short paragraph was simply merged with the one beneath it. In my opinion (and that of those who supported the article at FAC), the section was fine as it was before the anonymous editor saw fit to change it. Dmoon1 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)