Talk:Hammer Film Productions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Hammer Film Productions has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "A crash course in horror (part two)", Mail & Guardian online, June 2, 2005.

I've made some biggish changes to this article - hope that's OK with people. There was lots of good stuff here, but it was in the form of nuggets, rather than a coherent piece, and the tone was occasionally not quite right. Look forward to others adding and tinkering, though. Rayray 17:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The changes I've made are mostly removing some excess verbiage and things that could be interpreted as biased. There are still bits that need work (the further reading section, for example). Motor 22:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Images

The article would really benefit from some images. One for the top of the article that sums up "Hammer" (personally I'd go for Christopher Lee as Dracula, but hey that's just me) and then pepper a few screen/publicity shots alongside the various films being mentioned. What's the copyright status of publicity shots? - Motor (talk) 22:25:01, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

I agree! I gather from Wikipedia:Fair use that screenshots from the films, publicity stills, posters, and DVD covers will probably be allowed. It would be better to provide these ourself, though, than to "borrow" them from other websites who may have made their own scans. I have some books with Hammer publicity images at home - perhaps I can scan some of those? Anyone help with screenshots...?Rayray 08:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I got a nice collection of Hammer memorabilia at home and will see that I scan some of them in over the next few days. profchallenger

Sounds excellent! In the meantime, does anyone have a nice scan of the Taste the Blood of Dracula poster that's fairly ubiquitous?[1]Rayray 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

We are still lacking images (other than screenshots). I'm thinking of images such as shots of Bray, group photos of the crew, shots of "Hammer House". These could possibly have copyright problems, naturally... so they would have to be GFDL or be usable under some fair use provision (low-res copies etc... I think, I'm not well-versed in it).

Does anyone have a solution? - Motor (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bray Studios

Not being a Hammer expert or anything (I'm currently reading English Gothic - and I've got Wayne Kinsey, Hammer Films: The Bray Studio Years on order at the library)) -- I've just made some changes to The Curse of Frankenstein and need a bit of advice. I added some information about where the production started shooting: Bray Studio, but this links to an American animation studio via a redirect to Bray Productions. Is there an article about Bray Studio UK that I've missed? The article about the US animation studio makes no mention of it. - Motor (talk) 12:12:57, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

I think hammer filmed at Bray Studios (plural), rather than Bray Studio. That might help partly. It's possibly also the case that the Bray Studio article needs a disambiguation line, and a new article needs to be written on the Hammer studios. Having said that, it depends how much we have to say between us about the Hammer studio facilities other than where they were. Photos, a map and some more detailed history of the buildings would be great. Is that stuff in the book you're reading?Rayray 12:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I've checked - Bray Studios needs to be a disambig page, and we should put together a Bray Studios (UK) page. Rayray 12:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately English Gothic (Jonathan Rigby) doesn't seem to contain much explicit material about Bray Studio. It's more of a catalogue/review of 100 selected British horror films that mark out important periods. I'm sure we can hunt down some info on Bray on the web (I'll have a good hunt later tonight), and I'll be happy to fill it out with more sourced information should the library come through with my Hammer Films: The Bray Studio Years request (assuming it has such details). I won't be able to provide images though... no scanner. - Motor (talk) 13:12:11, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
I've just created Bray Studios (UK) and filled it with some information from the web. I plan to come back to it when/if the library can get hold of Hammer Films: The Bray Studio Years, but for now at least, this is decent placeholder with some minimal information... but of course, anyone is welcome to improve before I get around to it. - Motor (talk) 00:27:19, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Hammer Films

I bit the bullet and merged this and Hammer Films. I hope everyone is OK with that!Rayray 13:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll be blunt, I wish you'd proposed the merge first, and asked for feedback, and then merged if everyone was okay with it. Leaving that aside, what was the rationale for making the article for the studio redirect to the term that describes their product (but not all of their product, and not only their product)? If a merge were to occur, the reverse seems to be what would make far more sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Apologies - I'm still learning the etiquette. I hope this will all work out for the best, however - Hammer Film Productions should cover the entire history of the company, and that's what I think we're going to end up with.Rayray 15:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This is the kind of misunderstanding I was concerned about, and tried to explain, on the Talk:Hammer Films page... no-one is suggesting that "Hammer Horror" represents the entire output of the company. Hammer Horror contains the most detail and the longest edit history. The idea is to consolidate all the Hammer articles into one article -- in this case "Hammer Horror" and then finally move the page to a more appropriate title. I put Hammer Film Productions (the proper name of the company) up for speedy deletion -- it was just a redirect page to Hammer Horror -- with aim of eventually moving the "Hammer Horror" article there, while preserving all its edits.
NOTE: The page has been deleted now, and so I've just moved Hammer Horror in its place. - Motor (talk) 23:53:53, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Hammer Film Productions Ltd.

A well-written article with useful information, which could do with merging in. I'm wary of copying the text (even though I think the intro is good), because looking at the edit history the article appeared almost fully formed from an I.P only edit -- which makes me slightly dubious about its origin. I don't want to unfairly malign the person responsible, if they actually wrote it for Wikipedia, but that's sometimes an indicator of copyright violation. Any views? - Motor (talk) 14:39:55, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

OK - I've merged the good stuff from Hammer Film Productions Ltd. (I think), and made some minor corrections/additions based on further research (e.g. Hammer Films was founded in Nov 1934, not 1932 nor 1935). Hope everyone is happy with this.Rayray 15:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headings and "Mini-Hitchcocks"

User:Motor - you changed the Experimentation and Sex Vampires heading, probably rightly. I've made some more changes to headings and structure so that people can navigate this article a little more easily. In so doing, I've noticed the absence of a section on Hammer's "mini-Hitchcock" thrillers (Paranoia, for example). I've never seen any, but I could probably cobble something together. Anyone who has seen them fancy putting a paragraph together...? Rayray 08:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the heading because it had nagged at me for a while, it just didn't seem appropriate (I also accidently marked the change as minor). I don't think "Market changes" is all that wonderful either, but it was all I could come up with late last night. BTW: I've just reached a part in English Gothic that states the reason Hammer changed and upped its rate of output was due to the end of its distribution deal with Columbia -- and their new sponsor, Associated British, manoeuvred them into this new approach as well as insisting on them leaving Bray -- if anyone has more details on that it would make an interesting addition. Not to mention the competition from an increasingly successful Amicus and newly formed Tigon. Also, we don't mention that Hammer also produced comedy films like the On the Buses films. - Motor (talk) 09:52:19, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
I've seen several of the "Mini-Hitchcocks". I saw Scream of Fear while a teenager and even then, it seemed to be clearly inspired by Psycho. I have also seen Maniac (the blowtorch killer) and The Nanny. Unusually, I was able to guess the twist ending of Maniac. Scream of Fear had me totally fooled though. I have fleshed out the paragraph and have a book describing all the films so I'll have a think about anything else that can be added. Asa01 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction

I've tried to improve the article introduction. It is supposed to serve the purpose of being a quick overview of the entire article, avoiding too much detail but giving the casual reader (wants fast info) the important facts: Founding/purpose/best known for/dispense with myths/current situation etc etc. - Motor (talk)

I think the new intro is a huge improvement - those who want to know more can keep reading, but the first three or four paras now have everything the casual inquirer should need.Rayray 12:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a bit of checking to the part I've just added. I tried to sum up the fate of Hammer in one paragraph without too much detail. I may have been overbroad. - Motor (talk) 16:10:13, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
I think your expanded summary is fine, actually. I've spotted some typos and a few little stylistic things I want to sort (later today, hopefully, if you don't beat me to it), but otherwise, this is getting to be a fairly tidy article.Rayray 07:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I just created Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde from this page. It's just a bare basics page at the moment, so any improvements would be welcome. - Motor (talk) 21:35:39, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Have yet to see this film (!), but I might be able to expand it a little, when I find time.Rayray 07:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer category

I've been thinking for a while about creating a "Hammer films" category or something similar. I think it would be nice to at least group the Dracula films together, or the Frankenstein films or whatever, as they each make up a series. But as "Hammer horror" is really its own sub-genre I was thinking just about a Hammer films category as a sub-cat of Horror films and British films. I'd like to know what other people think, if this is a good idea, bad idea, or otherwise. JW 12:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. A couple of months ago I made a list User:Motor/Hammer with a similar idea in mind. I never went anywhere with it though (I decided to stick to my rule of avoiding anything to do categories). However, I don't think having "Hammer films" as a subcat of horror would be appropriate. Lots of "Hammer" films weren't horror: "British films --> Hammer films --> Hammer horror" would seem more appropriate, or have I misunderstood? - Motor (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I just dumped the contens of User:Motor/Hammer into List of Hammer films. It needs checking and formatting if anyone is interested in doing it before I get around to it. - Motor (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't actually thought of doing it that way, but that would work. I suppose I was thinking there won't be many Hammer non-horrors that will get their own articles anyway; probably the only one at the moment is One Million Years BC. So if there are only one or two it wouldn't be a major problem if Hammer films also appeared under Horror films, although it wouldn't be 100% correct. But it could work either way. JW 21:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I'll tidy up the notes section (the constant repetition of the bray studios author/book/isbn) later. Right now I'm just working my through noting the origin of each bit of info. - Motor (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to set this up so that all those long-winded references to The Bray Studios Years were kept in one place and just reference in a simple fashion in each note. Example:

  1. ^ Kinsey, Wayne (2005). Hammer Films: The Bray Studios Years, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 1903111447. p. 9.
  2. ^ Kinsey, Wayne (2005). Hammer Films: The Bray Studios Years, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 1903111447. p. 10.
  3. ^ Kinsey, Wayne (2005). Hammer Films: The Bray Studios Years, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 1903111447. p. 11.
  4. ^ Kinsey, Wayne (2005). Hammer Films: The Bray Studios Years, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 1903111447. p. 13.

Would become something like:

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Kinsey, p. 9
  2. ^ Kinsey, p. 10
  3. ^ Kinsey, p. 11
  4. ^ Kinsey, p. 13

[edit] Bibliography

  • Kinsey, Wayne (2005). Hammer Films: The Bray Studios Years, Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 1903111447.

Does anyone know if this is appropriate? Or if not, what's the correct way of doing it. I skimmed the wikipedia guidelines, but they weren't all that illuminating. - Motor (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't they use the Harvard system? JW 21:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just looking at a couple of the featured articles they seem to use slightly different formats, eg

McGilligan, Patrick: Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. Regan Books, 2003.

Solomon, Charles (1994): The History of Animation: Enchanted Drawings. Outlet Books Company.

but they don't usually list ISBNs. JW 11:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the Book Reference template, and that is what controls the appearance... it's what was recommended in the wikipedia guidelines. I'm not too worried about it since all the information is there, and formatting it is a minor job that can be done any time. - Motor (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer Miniseries

Just wondering if somebody could put up a seperate page for the Hammer House of Horror miniseries as I think it is well worth its own page. However if some of you think that would be excessive as something is already said about it in the main article then so be it. I'd put up a page myself but haven't learned the system well enough yet. Thanks all.

There's a section of this article that deals with Hammer's television series. You are welcome to expand it if you like. If it starts to get too large, we'll consider splitting it up and having a seperate article... but don't worry about that. Just start adding your stuff and we'll sort out any problems that come up. BTW: if you are going to be editing, it's probably worth registering and getting yourself a user name. - Motor (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birth of Hammer Horror

Does anyone have any comments on the section. Uneven coverage? Missing info? Structure? Anything outstanding that needs to be fixed (other than minor stuff like typos etc etc... just go ahead and fix those) with information from the reference I've been using. - Motor (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I've been thinking about submitting this article for peer review. Does anyone object?- Motor (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I took the liberty of linking "peer review" in your comment above.Rayray 17:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some corrections needed

Hi, just browsing the page, and noticed the peer review heading, so here are some thoughts - I think the 'Market Changes' section needs some alteration, some notes that anyone rewriting that section might wish to include:

1) 'Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell' is given as an example of the attempts to unsucessfully up the 'gore' quota. This film dates from 1974, after the Karnstein films that are mentioned. Although there are no errors here, the text could be misleading.

2) 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'Night of the Living Dead' are given as an example of of the films that challenged the Hammer period stable. Perhaps it should also be noted that these films had a contempory setting that the audience were able to associate with the characters more - Hammer responded with updates to their Dracula films, and the modern day settings of films like 'To the Devil a Daughter'

I think the section "Sequels (1959 to 1969)" also needs some more text:

1) It is worth noting that many of the Hammer films were altered for US Distribution; as they predate the PG-13 rating, many of the 1960s films were cut to receive a PG rating. 'Scars of Dracula' (1970) was the first Hammer film to be released with an R rating. 'Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell' had to be cut to receive the R rating (and the US DVD print is still of the cut version).

2) Although some mention is made of the stand-alone films made in the period, no mention is made of 'The Devil Rides Out' or 'Rasputin: The Mad Monk', both considered to be important films.

3) Some mention of the sucess of Hammer studios boosting other firms (Amicus and Tigon) as well as giving filmakers like Norman J. Warren and Pete Walker a market for their films.

There are highly detailed descriptions of the three main horror films but I think that the sections related to script and sets of these films should be moved to the film's own page. Leave a shorter summary on this page. R-T-C 17:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated.
I agree with most of your points. Go ahead and fix/add what you like.
Sequels, point 2: Yes, part of the reason for this is that I've expanding the article working my way from the early history of Hammer, through it's early horror successes -- so the later sections tend to be less detailed at the moment. We are quite weak on the later work, and particularly Hammer non-Horror stuff. If you'd like to include those films, go ahead.
Sequels, point 3: Yes... we do only hint at the horror boom caused by Hammer. If you want to make it more explict go ahead.
As for your last point, I disagree. The evolution of the script of Curse of Frankenstein and how the money was found etc etc is, IMO, crucial to the story of Hammer. There's nothing stopping anyone from using the material in the film's own article, but I'm against removing it from here -- at least, until the article gets unmanageably large (which, hopefully, it will<grin>). As for the BBFC reader comments: I included those mainly because I thought they were funny and gave some insight into the environment in which Hammer had to work. P.S. I did a little reformatting on your text. You didn't need the paragraph tags. - Motor (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Lee interview, discussing the Dracula movies

Hi:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1065958 is a 1999 interview where you can here Lee himself talk about playing Dracula, and his criticisms of the scripts, as well as acting in general. It's a great listen. My goodness, he's just so gracious.

[edit] Hammer template

I hate to be picky, but the template on this page is not right; the original title of the '58 film is Dracula not Horror of Dracula which was a US re-title. JW 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Picky is good! I've just fixed it. - Motor (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ext links and further reading

I've removed one ext link (site has ads and those sponsor links to online stores) and one Further reading entry... as it was added by the author himself, or someone with that username at least (seems inappropriate). I'm considering removing the further reading section completely. Any views?


[edit] Further reading section

The reason I removed the section was that it was turning into an advert for books. Citing books when they provide information for the article is one thing, recommending them is another. After this edit, I pretty much decided that the section had to go. I don't doubt the guy's motives, since if he was being sneaky he would have logged in under another name and tried to pass it off that way. I'm sure he genuinely thought it was worthwhile further reading (and it may well be) ... but still, it's not really appropriate. So I removed it, and then extended it to the whole section (a couple of weeks ago)... because the section was already a bit dubious. - Motor (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


There's a lot written about Hammer, some good some bad, some historical, some critical. If anything I'd say that the further reading section doesn't actually go far enough. There's at least half a dozen books on the subject each of which provide insight into different aspects of the company and their films. There's a number of excellent magazine (Little Shoppe of Horrors, House That Hammer Built, Dark Terrors etc), all of which are highly recommended to those who want to learn more. And I for one would welcome a list for academic publications too. Anyone else any thoughts?

I'd say that the books sound very useful as sources to further improve this article, not as recommendation in a further reading section. As it stands, the article is heavily reliant on one source -- the Kinsey book. This is something of a weakness. Checking out the sources in other books and multiple citing them... and (especially) expanding the article (in particular... Hammer's post-Bray years which is still rather sparse) with more information would be very helpful. - Motor (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that the dependence on Kinsey (who himself cites a vast array of other sources including some of the ones I previously mentioned) is a weakness in the article. The Wikipedia entry then appears to be summarising his book rather than using it as a partial reference. Kinsey has a new book coming out on the Elstree years which will no doubt be useful in this department, alongside the other books. However, I would have thought that the purpose of a further reading list is to provide other sources of information on a subject that the reader of the Wikipedia article can consult to find out more about Hammer in this instance. The Bibliography on this page does not include all the book sources cited in the references either. I'd suggest adding these at the very least. The books I'm thinking of cover far more than this article has scope to, and thus I believe should be included.
The bibliography was created as a way to avoid including the same book details in every citation (that's why it just says "Kinsey" in the note) throughout the article - check the "Notes" section on this talk page for an explanation. It wasn't originally meant to list all the books used. For example: two books are only used once... and therefore did not get moved into the bibliography. This is method of organising citations is open to debate... and was more of a spur-of-the-moment thing, knowing that all the information is still there and can be reorganised easily. It may well be better to move the two books that are only used once into that section too, and refer to them in the same way as is currently done with Kinsey. Feedback on the current method would be useful, but please add it to the "Notes" section to keep things ordered.
As I said above, if you can provide alternative sources for the information in the article it would be very welcome... it would also serve as a valuable check on the current cites. Using magazines and books as sources for further expansion of the article, and citing them, would also be a valuable addition to the article. But simply adding lists of books and magazines if they are not used to add/check in the article, is not. If you want to start expanding/checking the article, you should create yourself a user name -- it makes things simpler. I look forward to seeing how you can improve the article. But please, avoid removing talk page material in future. I have no objection to it being removed in this case, but only if my assumption as to the reason is correct... and if that is the case, then no more need be said on the matter. - Motor (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I'd like to make an effort to cut down on the number of red links. A quick scan through the article gives this list: William Hinds, Enrique Carerras, James Carreras, Michael Carreras, Tudor Gates, Anthony Hinds, Peter Sasdy, Exclusive Films, The Public Life of Henry the Ninth, The Revenge of Frankenstein, The Reptile, To the Devil a Daughter. Should all of these be created (is there enough material to justify an article for each), or should some of them just be un-wikilinked?

And two names that I remember not linking when I added to the article, but possibly should be now: Max J. Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky - Motor (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete them straight away, as I have gradually been working my way through many of the gaps in Hammer on Wiki, and will do my best to fill in a few more gaps over the next few weeks. Of those mentioned above, I will certainly do something with Anthony Hinds, Peter Sasdy, The Revenge of Frankenstein and The Reptile. User:David L Rattigan 1510 18 April 2006 (GMT)
I've unlinked henry the ninth because none of the other early hammer films were linked either. I also unliked Exclusive Films, simply because I don't think there's that much info available. Naturally, if anyone wants to create the articles they can relink them. So now we are just left with people. (just created Twins of Evil, a red link I overlooked above) - Motor (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hammer box thing

Don't even know what it's called - the box at the bottom of every Hammer page that lists all the movies. How do I go about editing it? There are several significant movies that could be added. Cheers. User:David L Rattigan 12:11 01 May 2006 GMT

It's a template... and it can be found here: Template:Hammer Horror - Motor (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] potential to be featured

hi, nice article, with some more work could become a featured article candidate. this would mainly involve finding & using some *other* sources other than kinsey alone. the most close guideline featured article would probably be Hong Kong action cinema which also covers a large, long body of films over a long era. cheers. Zzzzz 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this weakness of a single source was just discussed above. What I'm going to do, for a start, is take some of the references listed in Kinsey and cite those directly. It's not really "solving" the problem since I'm still relying on Kinsey's correctness... so if anyone has access to the material that gets cited... please fact check it. The other issue, IMO, is the relative weakness of the later years. I think we cover the birth of Hammer Horror ok (barring any mistakes, missing patches or copyediting)... but the later stuff is sparse. We also should also consider detail on non-Horror activities - providing we can find reliable sources for anything added, of course. - Motor (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so I've done a few of the early ones. I'll carry on with the others a bit later, unless someone else wants to do some. Regarding citation style. I used "op cit"... but if there's a better/clearer way, I'm not bothered how it's done as long as it is consistent, clear and all the info is preserved (so it can be changed later if required). - Motor (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Help! Giant template!

I was browsing some of the Hammer articles and, oh my God, I got hit in the eyes by a massive template. The thing is so huge it could take on Godzilla. Many of the film stubs and bio-stubs are completely swamped by it. Surely it would be better to split it into smaller templates, one for creative personal, one for the films, or better still, one for different film series, eg Dracula and Frankenstein series? JW 15:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What template do you speak of? Iolakana•T 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This one. Template:Hammer Horror

[edit] Template solution

In keeping with Jeff's suggestion, I am devising several smaller templates to replace the large template. They are as follows (in varying stages of development):

[edit] Tasks to do

The above templates may need tidying up. In particular:

  • Add missing names and films - having the smaller templates also means they can be more exhaustive
  • Change titles (on templates, not of templates) so that they are consistent. They should read "Hammer Films", ie "Hammer Films actors", "Hammer Films crew & personnel" etc
  • Add/substitute templates on articles

Hope this is all right by everyone. :) David L Rattigan 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot Fix the table markup, which David left open in every single template  :) --Paul A 07:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! David L Rattigan 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
On a more serious note: To save you some hunting, films from List of Hammer films or Category:Hammer horror films that are not yet listed in any of the templates include The Abominable Snowman (film), Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter, Four Sided Triangle, The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires, Moon Zero Two, Night Creatures, One Million Years B.C., Pirates of Blood River, Shadow of the Cat, She (1965 film), Spaceways, Sword of Sherwood Forest. I don't know enough about any of them myself to say which template if any they should go on, sorry. --Paul A 08:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Link?

The tabular at the end of the article says that "The Silent Scream" was made by Hammer and stars Peter Cushing et al. However, I don't think that it links to the correct Wikipedia-Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.142.213.142 (talk • contribs).

You are correct: it was linking to an unrelated article. It is no more. --Paul A 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hammer films category

Does anyone know why this category was deleted? JW 11:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can make out (speaking as one with the power to distinguish a deleted article from an article that never existed in the first place), Category:Hammer films never existed in the first place. --Paul A 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remember ever seeing one, but then I saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_Blood_River&action=history
The "deleted category Hammer films" edit was made by an automated system. I suspect that it's programmed to say "deleted category" whenever it removes a tag for a non-existent category, without taking the time to check that that's the actual reason. --Paul A 09:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that would explain it. Thanks. JW 11:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/m/Talk%7EHammer_Film_Productions_f395.html"