Talk:Gremlins 2: The New Batch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Gremlins 2: The New Batch 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.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 2, 2007.
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.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Main Page Picture

For the third time in a month, the anal copyright brigade have removed the main page picture whilst the article was on the main page. Congratulations, you've made us look incompetent again. Modest Genius talk 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the picture from the Robert Picardo article? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The poster for Halloween was in the Main Page all day if I remember correctly, not that that makes using the Gremlins pic right or wrong. Quadzilla99 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose a fair use image on the Main Page in this case; what realistic alternative is there?--Eloquence*

The anti-content crowd is just that... they don't really care how bad removing the image makes it look. They're here for a different purpose than purely making a good Wikipedia, and have admitted as much. To them, having it be "free" is better than having it be good. --W.marsh 02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They are the same people who would rather see the Eudora Welty article with an image of the woman's tombstone than one of her. It's ludicrous...get a real hobby. KyuzoGator 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And it happens again. Nosferatu is now the picture once again while a replica of the Mystery Machine has replaced the picture that was going to be shown for Scooby-Doo. [1] 128.227.11.115 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come on...

Yeah, Gremlins was a fun movie and all, but this article is obviously a pastiche cleverly worked together with out-of-context and photoshopped screenshots from Gremlins. Did you really think you could get away with making up your own imaginary film sequels? This is all completely unverifiable. What, is it still April 1 in your time zone?--Pharos 04:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but are you denying the existence of Gremlins 2? I've never seen it, but I do know that it has been aired several times on TV (either YTV or The Family Channel). Was it really so bad of a movie that you openly deny its existence? --LuigiManiac 05:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to turn on your sarcasm detector there, Luigi. --W.marsh 05:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What I've read is true, it really is harder to detect sarcasm over the internet. It doesn't help that I'm tired, and that was intended to be my last edit before heading off to bed. Now I will do just that. Good night. --LuigiManiac 05:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Just goes to show that even sub-standard subject matter (come on, I like the movie, but I recognize it for what it is) can be made into a good article. Kudos to everyone who made this article worthy of FA status. - Pennyforth 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sub-standard subject matter? Gremlins is "officially the greatest movie ever made" you know. Well it says so in the article. . . (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Oh yes, Gremlins is one of the greatest movies ever--I make a point of watching it every Christmas. But we're talking about Gremlins 2 here. Not an awful movie by any means, but not quite a worthy successor to the original. -- Pennyforth 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work, what a pleasant surprise :-) --Bobak 16:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OMFG. This does not rate Featured Article status. Good grief, there's not even a Cast list! --Lexein 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to go off on a tangent here, but I can't help myself. Just what is so good about grief? I'm always hearing good grief this or good grief that, but no one ever says why it is good. I have never experienced this "good" grief, only grief of the "bad" variety. --LuigiManiac 18:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's an expression. Those rarely make much sense. Brutannica 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a featured article, not a featured list. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a featured copyvio, if you listen to the DVD commentary. --Lexein 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that a FA about a movie doesn't need lists, a trivia section, a moment-by-moment plot summary or a quote section! You've given me hope!--Lepeu1999 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Much of this article IS a quote, from the DVD commentary. If all the copyvio is removed, it's back to a stub. This should NEVER have been granted even "B" status. Where does one call for an investigation into sockpuppetry throughout the promotion of this article to FA? --Lexein 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Batch of What?

I might be mistaken but am I reading that first sentence right? It says New Batch of Penises as part of the title...but when I go to the edit this page to fix it it is nowhere to be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.3.124.4 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh nevermind I guess. Whoever fixed it thanks :).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.3.124.4 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sombody blanked the page and just put "it was just a stupid movie" i reverted it (Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC))


[edit] more vandalism

...gremlins, caused much destruction and mayhem in Billy's small hometown. Gizmo's original owner Mr. Wing (Keye Luke) took the creature back after the gremlins had been eradicated.

Zach Johnson, whose phone is 310 562 9497, hates anybody that is not a vegetarian and white.

Billy and his girlfriend Kate Beringer (Cates) now live in New York, where they are having difficulty adapting to the large and impersonal city...

that's not supposed to be there is it...207.216.184.58 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed. Your computer must not be seeing the updated version. That happens to me a lot when not logged in, and it drives me crazy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraph...careful

Some folks are toeing the 3RR line - don't start an edit war. You have different opinions on how the material should be stated, so hash it out here, not in the article. --Mary quite contrary (hai?) 18:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:CanadianCaesar has apparently taken this article's intro paragraph to be his personal material. Most of these improvements are obvious, but I'll explain them here: (1) There is only one movie called Gremlins and Gremlins 2 is a sequel to that. Calling it a sequel to "the original Gremlins" is redundant. (2) "An American movie released in 1990" is long-winded for "a 1990 movie" because (a) convention is to refer to all published works, unless there is a specific reason otherwise, in terms of their year of release, but anyway (b) It makes no difference whether there are other years which are relevant to this movie; it matters only that the one being mentioned will be correctly interpreted, which it surely will. The shorter form is in wide use throughout the encyclopedia. (3) The second sentence should begin with "It was directed" rather than "GRemlins 2 is directed" because (a) The referent of "it", despite CanadianCaesar's comment on a recent edit, is absolutely unambiguous: the grammatical subject and item of interest in the new sentence is picking up on the grammatical subject and item of interest in the previous one. This is the simplest and most basic use of anaphoric pronouns in the entire language. You would have to deliberately misplace the emphases of the first sentence to hear the "it" as refering to anything but Gremlins 2. (b) It's less repetitive this way. (c) "was" rather than "is" because, obviously, the event of directing happened 20 years ago.
"It" isn't unambiguous because Gremlins rather than Gremlins 2 is the last thing mentioned now. Your accusations of ownership are ironic since you're doing the same, but whatever, I'll leave it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You didn't finish reading. What I said is that you have to deliberately--or, I should have added, incompetently--misplace the stresses in the first sentence to get that word as the referent. The order doesn't enter into it for a speaker of English.


[edit] MPAA rating

I mentioned this in an edit summary, but apparently no one picked up on it: since the article for Gremlins includes a substantial discussion of how it helped provoke the creation of the PG-13 rating, shouldn't this article mention that background in the sentence where the two films' different ratings are noted? MisfitToys 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just checked Academic Search Premier, Rotten Tomatoes, newspaper archives and Google and didn't see a source making the connection, so I don't think so, or at least not at the moment. It's not very crucial. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGremlins_2%7E_The_New_Batch_54f9.html"