User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Miscellaneous 2 Radio Links Hollywood? 3 TSM DVD 4 subst: 5 Chow-Yun Fat 6 Dark Knight 7 Citation templates 8 Beowulf (2007 film) 9 Re: Dragonball 10 Fantastic Four film series 11 RE: Future Section 12 Future films department... 13 Hello 14 Raiders 15 Compass 16 Sweeney Todd 17 Critical reaction 18 Cast 19 Marketing 20 RE: Starscream 21 AfD nomination of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition 22 Content dispute 23 Dispute with Editor2008 24 Dick Tracy (film) 25 Just trying to cheer you up... 26 Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays 27 Iron Man marketing 28 Saving Private Ryan 29 NCfOM awards section 30 DYK 31 Trailers 32 Thank you! 33 Wiki advice 34 How is this impartial? 35 emp08preview cite 36 Editor conflict 37 Mr. McGee don't make me angry... 38 Hey! 39 Peer Reviews 40 POTC:AWE Canon edits 41 Keys to the Kingdom 42 Category:Top Grossing Films 43 Recent IP vandalism to our interest area(s) 44 Greetings 45 Religion in The Simpsons 46 The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson 47 Gladiator movie 48 Infobox movie certificates 49 The Dark Knight 50 TSM again 51 Transformers (film) 52 Inadvertant Rollback on Transformers (film) 53 Production notes on Shawshank Redemption 54 Transformers copy edit 55 E.T. 56 A day in the life of Alientraveller 57 The ET Sequel 58 Raiders of the Lost Ark - is it time? 59 Sorry - odd edit conflict 60 Torchwood 61 crossover citation 62 Re: State of Play (film) 63 The Matrix 64 Help on Batman: Mask of the Phantasm 65 Talk:Dragonball (film) 66 Bond 22 67 Paquin/Rogue in X-Men 68 Biased Statement? 69 Brethren Court 70 Re: Anger issues 71 GA Review? 72 Alien vs. Predator (film) 73 Cloverfield 74 James Bond 75 A potential chat session with Bill Oakley 76 Re: Transformers 77 Re: Dragonball film 78 Regarding Edward Scissorhands 79 peer review 80 Superman film series revision 81 Image:Montypythonfrench.jpg listed for deletion 82 My edit to Iron Man (film) 83 Re: The robots wot disguise themselves 84 TV and film talk 85 I need your advice on something 86 Narnia 87 Re: Fight Club 88 Roy Scheider a s Brody Picture 89 Re: Doc Doom 90 QoS 91 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CybertronBeecomic.jpg 92 Star Trek (film) revert war 93 Cloverfield image 94 LOTR Page move 95 WBFAN 96 Jack Harkness 97 Indy 4 98 Wolverine cast 99 Transformers (film) 100 Matrix reversions 101 X-Men 102 Star Trek 103 Bionic Woman 104 see alsos are unnecessary,....? 105 Deadpool 106 Userbox

[edit] Miscellaneous

(ambiguous heading since we go from topic to topic) Wow, that's definitely a hoax... the premise is impossible. If the speedy doesn't fly, I expect a snowball at AfD. Kind of odd, considering that the editor has worked on other items that are valid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there it goes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on Bond 22 -- I took it off my watchlist a while back since I figured it was in good hands. As for that purported film, I wish they'd do more crossovers, but in the hands of a decent director. Obviously in this case, the premise is outrageous, but something like the old Godzilla vs. Whomever films would be awesome to watch in a contemporary setting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have low expectations for Cloverfield -- it's gotten far too much hype to live up to. They should've done more with the marketing campaign -- these viral websites, whether they're relevant or not, don't add very much to the film. And there's a trailer for Prince Caspian!? I'll have to check it out -- I've been ignoring my RSS feeds as of late to deal with finals. I figure my wiki-traffic will go way up over winter break, especially since I'll have a week before my friends from other colleges come home. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha... remember when Star Trek attempted to be a Good Article last February? It's nice to know we were both right -- look at February 7, 2007, a far cry for the article today. How much interest do you have in this film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a huge fan of the franchise, but I'm looking forward to this new concept. I'm a sucker for science fiction, and this film seems like it will stand alone well enough to relate to non-fan audiences. I'm not so thrilled for I Am Legend, though -- I read the book pretty recently, and I don't know if the film adaptation will live up to the book's themes. Not to mention the message that the anonymous IP left on the talk page -- I quickly looked away before the information could sink in, and revert the unnecessarily spoiler-ish comment. I'll be going home this coming Tuesday, so I figure I'll be binging on films and Wikipedia for a period of time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand; I have not had much time to read the source material on which some films are based. I was fortunate enough to borrow I Am Legend from a friend. Odd thing about the book, only half of it is about that story. The second half has a collection of short stories by the same author. Nothing on the cover indicated the padding, so my friend was annoyed that the story wound up being so short. I didn't mind the shortness. A couple of reads that I want to do, though, are the entire Chronicles of Narnia (there's an all-in-one book like LOTR that I want) and His Dark Materials, which I've actually owned for a number of years but never penetrated. Not to mention that I've never read Harry Potter, and I'd like to play catch-up. No idea if I'll hold off on the final book before the final film or not. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It slipped for a second. ;) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice well-dispensed, thanks. I honestly wish there were more editors like us doing WikiProject Films... every time I embark outside of my zone, all I find is a wasteland (with a few oases here and there, I suppose). Bignole himself says that when he looks up a future film, he can tell if I've been there already. :-P We need more good editors like Liquidfinale on board. Hopefully, we can exercise manners and welcome newcomers into the fold. We were all new at this once, yeah? :) I remember being at the article for The Dark Knight and inquiring if LatinoReview.com's news about Ledger about the Joker was acceptable, and ThuranX responded nicely. From there, I treaded lightly... The Fountain was probably a nice pet project to develop on the side. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Psst... the guy might've meant this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesss! Thanks for sharing the good news. I just finished reading The Golden Compass last night and enjoyed it immensely. While the film doesn't seem well-received, I'm still interested in seeing the adaptation this weekend, especially the characters and the locations visually realized. I really am curious to see how it's been watered down because I didn't feel that the issues (at least in this first book so far) were dangerous in the real-world sense. Anyway, here's to hoping to the return of PJ -- now, will that be before or after Tintin? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Dragonball confirmed to be titled that way, without the spacing? When I first saw Variety mention it this year, I was thinking that it was ignorant formatting by people who didn't know anything about the franchise. I've added the film to my watchlist, and I'll help keep an eye on it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be seeing I Am Legend today in a few hours! I figure that after I see it, I'll try to implement these new headlines and maybe the critical reception as well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get a start on that interpretations subpage -- it's likely that there's too much content for the film article, so I may try to write the subpage quickly and provide a summary (with a link). Then maybe the FAC process. :) Believe me, I'm antsy enough myself to get it going. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Links Hollywood?

Can you eyeball Radio Links Hollywood? Looks like a brochure for the site (and created/edited by the site's webmaster, according to their userpage). I removed a lot of movie-related external links to that site as spamlinks, but just thought I'd get a second opinion overall from a heavy movie-editor such as yourself. Cheers. SpikeJones (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind -- someone has already posted something on the user's talk page. We'll see how this goes soon. Still... SpikeJones (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TSM DVD

Nope not yet, my order hasn't been dispatched, but I should have it by Monday (I hope). But anytime after next week (possibly during it, if I can be bothered) I'll implement all of the info from both commentaries. Apparently the stop the film during the tracks to fully explain the production behind some scenes. Gran² 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wahoo! I have it (it could have easily been a better DVD, but meh). I've listened to about half of the main commentary and its got a lot of good info. I don't have time now, but either tomorrow or Friday I'll go through the main one and add everything into the article, then the director's commentary at some other point. I'm definitely going to create an "Editing" section, and ship all of the joke/story/character change info there. Anyway, the deleted scenes are good, but there should be more, (there are a few I've seen on the internet, that arn't even included...) but I'm going to try and find the originally version of that TV guide article that included info on some deletions. Hopefully they'll get to it at some point, but so far I haven't heard any mention of Driver, Fisher or Brockovich's cameos, but they have mentioned a few cultural references (including an Orc in the mob scene), but some other sources would probably be good to expand such a section. Anyway, as said I haven't finished going through the commentaries yet, let alone an actual fine toothed comb info gathering... Gran² 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, not bad. More interesting than the previous teaser anyway. And yep, I'll steer away from boring crap that no one would care about, and isn't really important, such as: "Oh in this scene we had a lot of discussion as to whether Comic Book Guy's shirt should be light blue or dark blue, and eventually we went for normal blue..." Gran² 21:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, implemented the first commentaries info, without any really trivial info. I don't have time to copy-edit or fine tune it though, so could you take a look? Gran² 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yep it truely is in my opinion my masterpiece, and easily the best article I've worked on. But yeah, I could have done it without your help. Anyway there's (still!) more info to add, the whole other commentary (although its not meant to be as informative), some originally character drawings, and now that I actually know how to spell Cetiq there's a bit of info from my Sun DVD. And some other editors opinion would be great, thanks. Gran² 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the WP:FILMS policy on including award nominations, before the ceremony has taken place? Because the movie has four Annie Award noms, and a Golden Globe nom. As they're important awards, whatever the eventual result, I'm still going to mention that it was nominated, but what is the policy on including them at this stage? Gran² 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

God I hate it when people do that. An award/nomination is not more notable than the year and genre etc. It goes in sentence form, at the end of the lead... Gran² 17:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Commentary 2 implemented, not as much as the other one though. Good to see that there was a Star Wars reference in the film. Gran² 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And the wasn't really anything in the Sun DVD of use, so that's all the DVDs done. Gran² 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the peer review later today. I have to run an errand this morning, but I'll be back in a bit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subst:

Just noticed that you did not use subst: on User talk:ACushen Alexfusco5 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chow-Yun Fat

I feel he's more important at At World's End because in the credits he's named up there, after Keira Knightley and before Geoffrey Rush. We should honor the producers wishes in their ordering of the castmembers. Small5th (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Knight

Hi, there's a very brief chat with Ledger in the latest SFX, and I've added what looks safe so far. However, he also says, "I locked myself in a hotel room for a month, trying to find a voice that wouldn't sound like Jack [Nicholson]. It was really hard to say a line without it sounding like [him]. You couldn't help but slip into that mode. Eventually I did. It took a little tweaking." I'm not entirely sure whether this, even paraphrased, is too trivial for inclusion. Thoughts? Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 00:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, yes, that rationale makes sense. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

It's an OCD thing. :P The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf (2007 film)

Original research???? It was just an obvious difference pointed out, is not like I wrote a paper about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.97.161 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of the heading is "Differences from the poem" not "Historical inaccuracies". I don't know if you have ever read the poem, but most of it is not considered to be historically accurate for the most part. I mean, it's got dragons and all. Anyways, I guess I can back up my paragraphs with reliable sources(literature textbooks), will this be kosher? I don't mean to argue you to exhaustion, I just want to make sure I get how this works, so I can keep contributing to the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.97.161 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dragonball

Pre-production listing shows that Dragonball starts in "December, 2007". I suggest keeping an eye on when/if it makes the jump from pre-production to production, then the article can be unmerged. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, State of Play surprised me because it was on the verge of initiating production, but Pitt dropped out in the eleventh hour. Not to mention Wolverine dragging its feet to production (production listing shows Dec. 15, keep an eye on that). The strike really is making projects difficult. It's a good thing we have WP:NF in place to help out with the talked-about projects. I do hope, though, that the strike will barricade the JLA film from being made. Seriously, it's going to be embarrassingly Hollywoodized. I really hope that the 2008 superhero films show some quality that will instead be mimicked. I've got a couple of days left before I head home, and when I get home, I'll probably be cleaning up the rest of the stubby development-hell project articles. It's going to be a lot of time to kill. (By the way, check out the coding for the film titles I typed... it's a pipe trick.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess the coding changed when I submitted it. But if you type [[State of Play (film)|]], it'll show State of Play with the coding being automatically filled out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lemme know if you want to see the articles from Los Angeles Times and Globe and Mail regarding Sweeney Todd. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make User:Erik/Sweeney Todd when I get the chance. I'm sporadically studying for the finals at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any interest in pursuing a DYK for Dragonball (film)? We could try listing it at TT:DYK with a hook written out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! We should be able to do more of these since we're exerting better control over future film articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries -- that wasn't a serious "grrr". ;) It's funny to see us both so on the ball, though. I imagine this article will be a mild challenge to upkeep with the fan base and the possible bastardization of the adaptation. (I really am surprised that there wasn't more press about fans complaining that Bay "raped their childhood" -- was that really the case?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh... I guess I'm as blind as that IP. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic Four film series

I just wanted to congratulate you on an ASTOUNDING effort put into the article. I must admit that when I first attempted to clean it up, I was hardly confident at the article being decent enough, even down the line, but evidently with you've managed to play a big part in that. Good job! Whilst I'm here, I always notice you put a lot of effort in around various articles - Keep it up. -- Harish - 23:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Future Section

I did on accident - whoops! I meant to delete an earlier edit but I think I messed it up. Sorry! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess} 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future films department...

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

[edit] Hello

Just wanna point out your name is misspelled, it's supposed to be Alientraveler, because the word traveler has one L. If you want the name to be like that, I couldn't care less, just wanted to point out. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry for the mistake. It isn't always easy to know the difference. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raiders

You caught me seconds before I was gonna lay some good ol' boy smackdown on him. ColdFusion650 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compass

I was supposed to see it last Friday night, but as with my long-planned trip to see Beowulf at the Bradford IMAX, it fell through due to a combination of my g/f's work and our not being able to get hold of a babysitter in time. The current plan is to see it this Saturday night, and despite the mixed reviews, I'm looking forward to it. Lowered expectations often lead to a greater enjoyment (which is why I'm also rooting for Prince Caspian to prove me wrong). Have you seen Compass yet? Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm still largely off-'pedia until Monday, but as you asked about this, my g/f and I finally saw Compass tonight. And I can say... it was much better than a lot of the reviews had led me to believe. Without going into spoilers (I don't know if you've read the books), I was pleased it only suffered a little from one of the main problems I had with the first few Potter films and the first Narnia film; in those, the main characters have a deference automatically and instantly afforded them which is simply unearned, an almost royalist birthright deal which sat ill with me. In Compass, Lyra is treated like a kid until she shows a resourcefulness which earns her the respect of her companions (and enemies, I guess). But saying that, if there's a problem with the film, it's that it could do with an extra thirty minutes; the second act especially has pacing problems, and the whole thing is far too rushed, characters appearing seemingly to merely introduce themselves and offer Lyra their aid, before disappearing with nary an explanation. I strongly suspect Weitz's preferred cut of the film would address this issue, and that New Line had a hand in dictating both the running time and the obvious looping of lines for 'clarity' (read: idiot-proofing). Um, sorry; I've gone on longer than I anticipated. I'll shut the hell up now. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweeney Todd

Thanks for the enthusiasm. I was wondering, once we cover up enough information (where we can split the "Production" section into "Development", "Filming", "Design", etc), Should we change the soundtrack section to Music? This is a rather stupid question but you decide. Wildroot 11:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reaction

I think that'd be worth a try! I'm kind of shying my eyes from reviews of the film until I can see it captioned. By the way, wasn't sure if this is making its rounds in a big way, but did you see [this]? The Joker looks damn wicked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the link: I don't approve of piracy. Alientraveller (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, this might be more to your liking, though you may have to wait until Sunday. Steve ^{T • C} 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an idiot; I forgot I still had Raiders watchlisted and I thought they were being added to Crystal Skull. Repeat after me: duuhhhhhhh. Steve ^{T • C} 19:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Here. Not sure why the main page doesn't show it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

It isn't about thinking what you've done is inappropriate, because I know that you find real world information to put in these types of sections. I just feel that there really isn't a reason to have a cast "list". With actor names in the plot, and a section devoted to pure prose--where we discuss the casting of the actors and how the actors went about interpreting their roles and how they could make the character their own--we don't really need a list. IMDb covers the listing of all the actors better than we could. It's just always seemed like a redundant section, when you think about the fact that the casting of actors is part of the production processs--so when and why did we start separating them out into their own sections? To me, they should never have left the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to stop you; that page is your baby ;), so you play around with it as much as you like to get it as close to perfect as possible. I really enjoyed the wedding, thank you. I finally got to meet my cousins (I had never met the bride or her sister, or her mom (my aunt) before then...or at least when I could remember anything as a child..lol). The only problem was that it was raining the whole time, so when we had to leave the church and go to the reception it really sucked, because the rain was blowing hard and coming under the umbrella. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. Giving proper real-world context to the characters, unlike the present version it also doesn't discriminate against the robots which aren't voiced, as the process of creating those won't have been any less complicated than those which do happen to have lines. If you're going to have a cast list (which I'm not as opposed to as some), then that's the best way of going about it. I would suggest, however, that you call the section something other than Cast, which no longer quite fits. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 15:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing

Alientraveller, after talking to an editor at Talk:Cloverfield, I realize that we don't have any preset notions about what would go into a Marketing section. Obviously, with The Dark Knight (film), we've been seeing a lot of additions about the available footage. I think we need to figure out what constitutes marketing that would be included in the article. We really kind of started this with Spider-Man 3 (remember all these indiscriminate TV spot and promotional footage info?) but we've since rolled back. I was thinking about bringing up the topic to WikiProject Films to figure out what's relevant to include in such a section. We have a few examples with the upcoming films that could be shown as examples, like I Am Legend (film) or Iron Man (film). What do you think? (Anyone watching this are welcome to pitch in, too.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've laid out citations for this I Am Omega citation to render some objectivity for the matter, so nobody can make claims. Feel free to review my comments on the talk page and respond to my proposal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Starscream

Lol, never underestimate a pink robot. Oh well, nothing wrong with a little diversity. ;) I've been meaning to see the Transformers live action movie... how accessible is it for someone who knows FA about the franchise? I only recently found out the Transformers were a canon part of the Marvel Universe. Not their full history, I assume, but was their recent crossover with the Avengers canon?  Paul  730 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So do the Transformers exist in Earth-616... or just a universe which resembles Earth-616? I'm not really a fan of inter-franchise crossovers (they're entertaining but in terms of continuity in the fictional universe, they just make things confusing)... the recent Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness series is canon to the Marvel Zombieverse. But is it also canon to the Evil Dead universe? Because that would mean that the Evil Dead series takes place in the larger Marvel Multiverse. And if you count Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash as canon to the Evil Dead universe, then Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees also exist in the larger Marvel Universe. ???? Urgh. Science fiction make Paul's head hurt.  Paul  730 15:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So wouldn't the Transformers Multiverse and the Marvel Multiverse be the same multiverse?? Marvel has crossovers with DC, does that mean it's all one big multiverse? Where does it end??? *tears hair out in confusion* I'll definitely get around to seeing the movie at some point... speaking of IDW, are you planning on getting the new Doctor Who comic? I'm wondering whether it's going to be the usual tie-in expanded universe crap, or an actual worthwhile take on the series, like the Heroes comics.  Paul  730 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the artwork that's making me want to get it; I love how they've went really cartoony with it, I think it suits the fun tone of the series. The thing that's making me wary is that IDW have a spotty history when it comes to Angel comics (the fantastic, Joss Whedon-plotted, Angel: After the Fall notwithstanding off course) but since this is written by someone with Whoniverse experience, it should be good. I just hope they and make it memorable - no point in something disposable where they can't develop the characters in case it interferes with the show. That's what kept the original Buffy comics down.  Paul  730 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll like it because it's twisted? Lol, what do you think of me? ;) And not to sound racist, but all Transformers look the same to me. I need the film to ease me in gently and help me understand it all. :P  Paul  730 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about that userbox. I'm not really evil... I'm not a vampire either, believe it or not.  Paul  730 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I actually had it on my watchlist a while back cos I knew you, Erik, and Bignole were regular editors, but I decided to take it off because I couldn't always tell if new edits were appropiate for the article, having not seen the film. Speaking of FARs, sorry for not getting round to supporting your X-Men cast list... I actually completely forgot about it, and then when I saw it failed I felt all guilty.  :(  Paul  730 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition

I have nominated Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Marlith ^T/C 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you moved the content to this article, can you weigh in with your thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute

I've made a suggestion on the film article's talk page. I really don't think the vitriol was necessary -- both of you are capable of talking it out, both of you just need to do away with the angry tones. I know you can find something agreeable to both sides... Wikipedia shouldn't be so stressful for a hobby. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the barnstar, but I'm no saint. I just learned to relax a little bit more -- if you stretch out so-called disputes, like by not responding for a day and instead editing elsewhere, you can come back with a cooler head. Though, my recent comments for the TFD were probably not on the polite side. From the looks of it, it'll be no consensus. I'd really rather have a {{current film}} template that linked readers to WP:MOSFILM and requested for them to help out per guidelines if we had to have some kind of "current" template. It'd be somewhat better as opposed to the vague and inapplicable wording of the one in question. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the stance on spoilers has to be all-or-nothing considering that fictional topics can run the gamut -- its age, its length, its relevance, etc. I think we lack the technology to find a compromise between these two stances, and {{current fiction}} is rudimentary at best in its application. My mindset these days is that such articles need to be simultaneously dynamic and static, if that makes sense. They need to grow in content, but they need to continue being balanced without sounding like "more to come", like that example I reverted at Dragonball (film) about a character yet to be cast. I'm more interested in a historical perspective of these fictional topics on what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. I think that there is too much concern about the plot -- discussion on that needs to be downplayed, and discussion about contributing real-world context needs to be promoted. That's why I don't think the template I nominated for deletion works; it appears to be a vestige of previous discussions that amount to whether certain coding should be in an article or not in relation to plot, supposedly complementary to the rest of the article. We could save our breath for contributing actual content and perhaps let the readership go into encyclopedic articles without its hand being held. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey... saw this comment at Arcayne's talk page, and I think it should apply here. Just FYI and a suggestion to retract your request. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute with Editor2008

Removing User:Editor2008's reply to your report on AIV using the edit summary "go away" isn't going to help things at all. If you want the dispute solved, follow Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Your dispute seems to be a little complex for AIV so it'd be better to make a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Spebi 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree that everybody should be nice to each other. Could you stop posting here for a while to allow the situation to cool down? Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This sort of stuff is not on. All editors are treated equally, and just because you've written 3 FAs doesn't make you better than Editor2008. No one cares how many FAs you've written. Editor2008 is allowed to post his side of the story just as much as you are. I again agree with Addhoc, stop posting to each other, as well. Spebi 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Continuing to be uncivil and constantly making personal attacks and I would have considered blocking both of you for a little while. You're entitled to not have a particular message on your talk page, and Editor2008 was wrong to continue his harrassment to have that message on there, but you don't have any right to continue to remove every post you see unfit, especially one where he's trying to explain his side of the story. Thank you for understanding that civility is a must. Spebi 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Tracy (film)

Yeah, I support it. The development section can talk about Warren Beatty the director, whereas the casting section will talk about Warren Beatty the actor. Wildroot (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just trying to cheer you up...

I hope that you make the most of your break, and that you return sooner rather than later! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be back soon. Your contributions are invaluable, and especially so to comparatively newer editors such as me; I've learned much from observing your edits and I'm a better editor for that. In anticipation of your return, if you happen to read this before then, let me know on my talk page if there are any articles in particular you want keeping an eye on; I'll watchlist them and help keep them clean. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 10:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays

Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you as well! I would've used the template but you've already had two of them. Gran² 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Man marketing

I read into your explanation, and it's reasonably fair... but I thought Id make a small case put forward: Isn't the fact that the Super Bowl, which is seen by 90million people, worldwide (see used reference), notable in the fact that it's a great way to promote the film - a marketing ploy in the way that it's given some extra form of push as oppose to the expected typical TV spot or online trailer. The article stated that Paramount + Marvel spent between 2.7 and 3 million dollars just to promote the film so extravagantly, and as a marketer you are looking to find unique or noticeable EXTRA forms of above the line marketing, in order to get noticed and help capitalise off the opportunity - e.g. When they converted those corner stores into Kwik-E-Marts for The Simpsons movie. Essential? No. The Dark Knight viral campaign (or whatever it's referred too) - essential? Again, no. But it helps promote. In the same way, not every (or even the majority) of the films use the Super Bowl.

I'd go further in-depth, partly because I study marketing, but because it's not fair on you to have to read more, I won't. And I get the feeling at this point that you'll say something like "It's the rules." which will suck. Anyway, thanks for reading, and I do ask that you think about it with reason :) -- Harish - 01:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing (well, reading) me out! Appreciate it, and I'll understand if it does get removed - I'll prepare not to edit war it out haha (j/k - not my style). Anyway, whilst I'm here - wish ya a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Have an all round great holiday, and do a lot of chillin'! -- Harish - 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to re-visit this, but it occurred to me that I didn't even add the price tag of the Superbowl spot. That was half the reason I thought it should be in haha. I'm wondering - is it worth the mention at this point, in your opinion? -- Harish - 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Private Ryan

Hi, Just a note, I made a small change to your edit to the above - I approve the spirit but we had a real POV war over that issue a few months ago so I re-worded slightly. Hope you don't mind.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NCfOM awards section

Alientraveller, what's your take on the size of the Awards section at No Country for Old Men (film)? I'm inclined to either summarize it and place it under Response, or move it to a separate page. The second option seems premature, since most of the list could become un-notable if the film doesn't win the majority of awards it's up for . . . . Thoughts? Are there some other film articles to use for guidance? Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 25 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dragonball (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! ;) Make sure you put {{User Did You Know2}} on your user page! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trailers

• A discussion is fine, but this is not officially endorsed Wikipedia policy as far as I can judge. Why should I consider a discussion *somewhere on a talk page* as binding ? Hektor (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Alientraveller, thanks for your very kind Christmas note on my talk page. Sorry I haven't been around Wikipedia too much lately -- my life is taking over. It is good to see an old face pop in and wish me well for the holidays. Hope you enjoy yours as well. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 05:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki advice

Hey man - as you're a regular Wikipedian who's done a lot of hard work when improving articles, I was hoping you could help me understand the difference between 'References' and 'Notes'? I'm never really sure where to put my citations (with articles that have both) as they generally seem the same. -- Harish - 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man, appreciate the tip! -- Harish - 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this impartial?

from my brevious edit to I Am Legend:

Many fans believe the movie to be metaphorical, the Krippin Virus representing racism. The three immune protagonists are minorities (an African-American and two Brazilians). When Neville relates the story of Bob Marley to Anna, he compares Bob Marley to a virologist who combats racism as if it were a virus. He would "cure" racism by "injecting" music and love into people's lives. Neville is a virologist who combats the Krippin Virus by injecting a cure. If the movie is indeed metaphorical, Neville represents a combatant of racism, such as Bob Marley, attempting to cure racism, of which he and few others are immune. The reference by Neville to Bob Marley dying for his cause is seemingly parallel to he himself dying to protect the cure for the Krippin Virus. Neville also states that the cure to the KV is "in our blood", possibly hinting that the cure for racism is inside people. The narration by Anna ends with a quote by Bob Marley, right after stating how the surviving humans carry on Neville's legend.

I don't see how it's impartial! It seems neutral enough to me! But hey at least tell me what's wrong with it so I can change it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.169.147 (talk • contribs)

[edit] emp08preview cite

Is that something Empire has put out? 'Cause the "publisher" field is missing from those cites. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor conflict

While his conduct is not appropriate, the way you approached him on his user talk page seems to have instigated it. Before we take drastic measures such as filing a report, I would suggest trying to amend the situation yourself. While he could be reprimanded for wikistalking (which can be a tricky case to prove sometimes), your dialogue with him currently does not reflect so well on you. Perhaps a kind of apology would be in order? Something along the lines of, "I apologize for being brusque earlier," and explain the situation. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, unless you believe this is a situation already out of control. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a better choice of words could have been used in the end -- "Please desist" seems too much of an ultimatum, one in stark contrast with what you previously said. It reads like, "I'm sorry, but I'm still right" in a slightly arrogant manner. I would swallow my pride a little more strongly were I in your shoes. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Due to the continued issue of placement of information for The Hobbit, I think we should go ahead with an article akin to Tolkien films or a similar name. In the article, we can mention the 1978 film, the film trilogy, the planned prequel, and also the interest expressed in a film adaptation for The Children of Húrin as seen here. We can make it like the X-Men film series with the compilation of box office performances and critical reactions for LOTR, and have a Future section covering The Hobbit, the second film after it, and The Children. I think this works because Tolkien is the broader topic, above LOTR. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. McGee don't make me angry...

Thanks, it's good to be back home. I enjoyed seeing my family and the break, but the traveling sucked. 1700 miles of driving, round trip. It wasn't that bad to catch up at Wiki. I knew you and Erik would have Spider-Man, TDK and similar pages taken care of...and that Paul would have the horror related pages clean. Since I took myself out of those discussions to end the guideline status of FICT, EPISODE and the others I didn't have to read all that stuff--which saved me a lot of time. So you liked I Am Legend too, cool. I was meaning to see AVP:R while I was away, but I guess I'll have to catch it here locally, which is probably better--nicer screens in Tallahassee.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but at this second I'm leaving for work so it will have to be when I return this evening. What combined tv screenshot do you want? I think I know what you want, because it's the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the other image...but I want to make sure. Also, do you have commentary talking about both images?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I cropped and resized the Hulk image, but since I'm not on my own/old computer I cannot capture any screenshots for you. My g/f's laptop doesn't use PowerDVD; it uses the Windows Media Center--which wouldn't let me capture any images.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good. Glad you found one. I'd crop that first image out though, because you don't need one of just the chair.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for them, they don't own the image--they're both copyrighted by the studios. All you have to do is right-click the picture and hit "Save picture as". Then open it up in any photo editing program (or you could do it in Paint if you don't have one) and just crop out the top image. I haven't been watching Bond 22. Why, has their been some problems on the page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm glad you got it to work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. My only problem with the film is wondering how they are going to tackle continuity. I always hate when they replace actors, even if the previous actors sucked at the role.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I would even mind a retcon if the story had been loyal to the tone of the character. There was a whopping great retcon in Angel where Angel erased his son's memories, but it was necessary because Connor was such a hatable character and the mind-wipe made him likable, and there were big consequences later on. I'm not convinced that MJ is what's wrong with the Spider-Man books, and the whole devil-deal-to-save-Aunt May is just a mess. I must admit though, I am a fan of Dan Slott's work, I might buy Brand New Day if it turns out to be good. The only Spidey books I own are Ultimate and Marvel Knights Spider-Man #1 - 12 (which I really enjoyed).  Paul  730 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

I was talking to another editor of Wikipedia and he says that in order to get a GA nomination, it would probably be best to have an entire cast section for all characters, instead of one devoted the lead role. I've also removed a few bits in order to make Johnny Depp's section smaller, but if you want add what I took out, that's perfectly fine since the size isn't really an issue at the moment. Do you have any other ideas? I've also merged the cast section into "production", as it usually belongs there since casting is generally apart of the production process. I've also uploaded an image to the article to broaden the quality. Disco dog23 (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You could always add that info on his design, then. Like I said, its not really too big (yet) to have the information there. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disco dog23 (talk • contribs)

When I try to add my edits on Edward Scissorhands, they don't appear on the page. What's happening? Disco dog23 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Reviews

Happy New Year, Alientraveller! Given your vast contributions to film pages (and per a recommendation by User:Erik), I thought I could solicit your assistance. I've submitted two articles for peer review, and thought that you might like to critique them:

• 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.

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) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POTC:AWE Canon edits

Alientraveller - You know, I think I've seen that same canon reference somewhere before, from another IP editor in the past few weeks. Would that constitute vandalism, especially if the exact same edit keeps popping back up? Edit Centric (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keys to the Kingdom

Nice work implementing the Vanity Fair articles; I'd just read them myself and was planning on sending the links your way. As for the film, I trust Spielberg, but I must admit the "Lucas was adamant. It was this idea or nothing" type comments are slightly worrying, as if Spielberg and Ford have been browbeaten into something they're not 100% sold on. Still, even if I'm apprehensive, the news (to me) that Spielberg's is likely directing a script by Aaron Sorkin next more than makes up for that. Steve ^{T • C} 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Top Grossing Films

hey, you nom'd it, but it doesn't link to a deletion discussion, nor is there any such cateogry listed... did you do something functionally incorrect on the editing to nom it? ThuranX (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent IP vandalism to our interest area(s)

Alientraveller - I just updated the vandalism templates for user 209.244.30.109. Looks like this one has a beef with the content, but still refuses to say just what or why, and just removes the content. If it happens again without a response or justification, I'll take it over to WP:ANI, cool? Edit Centric (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, better yet I went ahead and posted a pre-block advisory notice there, and documented the diffs so that any admin that wants to can research it and verify the intent (or lack thereof) before any blocks are applied.

Defending the Wiki from shenanigans, Edit Centric (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Saw the message late. Sorry! Vikrant 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in The Simpsons

Honestly, no idea, and actually I hadn't "always" been interested in improving that article, only lately. But at any rate, if you have any particular thoughts on a potential structure, I'd be glad to hear it. Cirt (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

• And also lately I've been busy with other stuff related to WP:DOH/TOPIC, and other areas, so I had not been giving that article much thought. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Okay, we could start by focusing on sourcing - setting up the sections by religion, with at least a brief cite/source in each section so they're not unsourced, and then moving unsourced stuff to the talk page in an archive - and gradually moving stuff back/expanding as we add more sources/cites. Cirt (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Some material and references could probably be culled from the existing articles on relevant episodes listed at Religion in The Simpsons. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson

Hey. I added more to the lead and changed the images. However, I still prefer the old infobox image, as the World Trade Center towers were still visible, and the picture was a better visual of New York overall... Tell me what you think on the talk page of the article. xihix(talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also preferred the other infobox image, with the larger view of New York. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Gladiator movie

The article contains many mistakes : 1- Plot

a-When did Commodos offer Maximus the position of Praetorian prefect ? He didnt !!!.

b-Commodos dispatched Praetorians not soldiers to kill Maximus family

2-Historical

a- The first battle in the movie which was the last battle of Marcomannic wars was fought in Germania not in Pannonia >> exactly in Laugaritio near modern Trencin/Slovakia

b-The article does not mention Marcus Valerius Maximianus who was the Roman general who led the Roman army in its last battles in the Marcomannic wars .. obviously the name Maximus was driven from his name

I want you to consider these changes --Blain Toddi (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox movie certificates

I've put together a TFD argument in my sandbox for eventual nomination of the template for deletion. Do you have any suggestions on the matter, or examples that I could add? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight

Would you not agree that Christian Bale is reprising his role as Batman / Bruce Wayne rather than putting the word "again"?

I would welcome your input on this subject and i cant wait for this film to arrive - it should be the best film of 2008!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: I've been thinking that we've been trying to emulate writing credits too closely in the infobox. From what I've noticed, the lead section and the article body usually reflects the source material. It seems that the infobox should be film-centric. I was looking at The Dark Knight (film) and thinking that it didn't need to refer to the creators of Batman, since where would one stop? At the creators of the Joker and Two-Face or furthermore? Let me know what you think... this may be an easy way to address the annoying formatting of breaking down the writing credits. Consider it a new approach. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be too confusing. I just think that sometimes the source material needs a bit more explaining than the infobox permits. We already start out many lead sections with "...is a film based on the source material." The infobox isn't necessarily supposed to be the primary details from the lead section found in table format -- we list producers, cinematographers, and editors without really explaining them. For writers in some cases, we never really learn their methodology (especially for smaller films), just that they provided a workable script. It's just a thought to simplify the process, since I don't think it's fair to say that people would only look at the infobox upon arrival. The lead section is meant to have the standard focus, with the infobox right behind it, IMO. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; we're just doing what we do best. :) I found out like you did -- almost writing it off as vandalism, then thinking, that's rather specific.... so I typed "Heath Ledger" into Google News and was shocked. To be done in his prime... EW is right, it's going to be hard to watch Ledger's Joker. I don't know how the film will end, but I doubt the Joker will bite the bullet like in the 1989 Batman. He may just be put aside in Arkham Asylum for the third film, while Two-Face becomes the main villain. My guess is that he'll be out of the picture until at least the fourth film -- recasting so soon after for such a major role (as opposed to Rachel Dawes) doesn't really seem appropriate, IMO. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Harlequin would be great if done right. She and the Joker have a really psychopathic relationship from what I've read in the comics and seen in the animated shows. It'd have to be delivered well in live-action, especially in Nolan's grounded universe. I really am curious about where a third film would go, though. A lot of the major "grounded" plot devices seem covered -- Gotham under single rule, Gotham under chaos, and possibly Gotham under multiple rules, considering all the different gang leaders in this second film? Don't get me wrong, I like Batman, but I'm not sure where else he could go in terms of character development without all the elements in the comic book universe (sidekicks and supernatural archenemies) to help him out. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah, for a second, I thought you said David Tennant as Robin, and looking at the picture, I was thinking, "Umm..." The Riddler wouldn't be bad. I don't much much about his character other than his over-the-top appearances in the films and animation. I do recall a decent scene in Hush (SLIGHT SPOILERS) where the Riddler tells Batman he'll reveal Batman's true identity. Batman then asks him an easy riddle, and the Riddler gives the answer like it's nothing. Batman then says, that's what revealing his identity would be like, making it an easy riddle where everyone knows the answer. So that affects the Riddler's psychology, and he keeps the identity under wraps. Just happened to remember that part, that's all. (END SPOILERS) I'm hesitant about Catwoman, too -- while her relationship with Batman has been interesting, it almost doesn't seem grounded enough for Nolan. Then again, he's been pretty impressive with how he does his approach. Perhaps he'll do Robin... I think the beginnings are tricky, but I think that the way Robin becomes Nightwing is a real nice study of the father/son relationship. It's just the beginnings are difficult to deliver authentically. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. Since it's likely to be no consensus, I'm gonna be like, "Watch and learn!" as I add this. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny how all of a sudden there's a decent article with a lot of the same information, and now the interest seems to be to merge. I really wish the closing admin luck in figuring this out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The production of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has been suspended indefinitely, so it looks very likely that Ledger's last performance will be as the Joker. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TSM again

Well it was only going to be a matter of time... probably for the best though, cos I'd have just kept putting the nomination off. Speaking of FACs, how far do you think you're off with Transformers? Because if this passes (and I hope it will), then Transformers is sure to. Gran² 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, something from the past or future? I kinda got bored with the Harry Potter films, but some help might bring the interest back. And there's a lot of other films I've considered doing at various times but never got started, ranging from The Truman Show to Shaun of the Dead to Star Trek: First Contact. Gran² 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, got the normal and extended versions. Gran² 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What? The guy withdrew the nomination because Buc said to... There was nothing wrong with letting it run for, its not like you can't do work during an FAC... do you think I should re-nominate. Gran² 15:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, shame, guess the Academy don't like films based on TV series. Ah well, it was one of the 12 films shortlisted, is that worth a mention in the article? Gran² 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, some people actually think an award nomination is more important than even what the article is about... silly. Ah well, it got the GG nom, and the Annies and a BAFTA, that's not that bad. Gran² 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wow that nom went quickly, little over a week! Gran² 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers (film)

On line 109 of the article, the following was inserted

For Devastator, the crew chose to use an M1 Abrams tank prop built for xXx: State of the Union.^[1] The character was intended to be named Brawl, but the subtitled line where the character names himself in Cybertronian reads "Devastator reporting". It was not fixed despite being pointed out by the writers twice.^[2]

Does this belong here?  — master son^{T - C} 17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inadvertant Rollback on Transformers (film)

I inadvertently rolled back your latest edit on this article that shouldn't have been rolled back - sorry - I undid the action immediately.  — master son^{T - C} 17:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production notes on Shawshank Redemption

Hi AlienTraveller -- I have taken the liberty of reinstating my production notes on Shawshank Redemption, which you kindly expunged this morning. :) It was my first-ever Wikipedia submission, so apologies for the lack of an edit comment, as well as incorrectly marking the edit as minor. This time I have referenced the IMDb Filming Locations site, which was my primary source for this information. I also have a secondary source (regarding details such as the construction of the wall); however this is in printed material rather than an online source (http://www.amazon.com/Shawshank-Redemption-Shooting-Script-Newmarket/dp/1557042462), so I am not sure how to reference that. What is the accepted "Wikipedia way" for referencing printed material? On a personal note, I do have my own personal research (I visited these locations over Christmas; took hundreds of photos, many of which are of publishable quality; interviewed the park staff), so I am completely confident of the content, but obviously I cannot quote this primary research directly. Nevertheless, the sheer accuracy and verifiability of my additions is beyond question -- you can stand at any one of these locations any day of the week and take a photo that is practically identical to what you see in the film). At the end of the day, my addition definitely adds quality and richness to the Wikipedia entry, and to arbitrarily remove it is capricious since there is clearly loads of other content on the same page that is actually a lot less verifiable -- how would I go about verifying that the Raquel Welch poster dates from 1967 for example? Anyway, your input is welcome. :) Regards, JP.

[edit] Transformers copy edit

Alientraveller, I'll be glad to work on Transformers. I'll find some type to start by tomorrow.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AT, could you help me understand the context of this sentence in the Filming section of Transformers?

To film Scorponok's attack at White Sands Missile Range, a mine sweep was performed to build a village, which would ironically be blown up. The scene was broken down for pilots flying the AWACS in the scene, who improvised dialog as if it were really happening.

I want to clean it up, but I'm unsure of its purpose in the article and I lack the DVD commentary. What does a "mine sweep" have to do with construction (and how is blowing it up ironic for a film involving destruction on a massive scale)? And I know what "breaking a scene down" is, but what is significant about such a common filmmaking occurrence and what does it have to do with the improvised dialogue? Thanks for the help.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got another one:

Many of the animators were big Transformers fans and were given free rein to experiment: a scene where Jazz attacks Devastator is a reference to a scene in The Transformers: The Movie where Kup jumps on Blitzwing.

This appears to be a non sequitur. It's in the Effects section following a passage about the effects used for the robots' appearances (no surprise there). As it stands, it seems to be an irrelevant, gratuitous comment about the animators rather than the focus of the paragraph, the effects employed. Is something missing that ties the referenced Kup/Blitzwing scene to special effects? Again, thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did someone just ask, "Are we there yet?" No, I still have more to do; just trying to balance that with other projects, giving midterms and spousal duties. lol. I'll keep plugging away.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I also made some changes based on them. Actually, it's good that I've never seen the film so I'm looking at the plot description with naive and fresh eyes. I hope I've clarified things in my changes rather then screwed them up. On another topic, although I'm the extreme enemy of plot bloat in film articles, should some mention of the human characters (and their actors) be mentioned? The Lead does mention "starring" and I know fans thought the Transformers were given short shrift relative to the human stars . . . . (I figure the Plot section can always be slimmed down once it's clearly described.)
Jim Dunning | talk 13:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew you were British before checking your User page. You're the one putting all of the "the"s before nouns, such as "Autobot-human convoy goes to the nearby Mission City . . . ." —lol— Anyways, since Transformers is a US film, usage and spelling should be American, I think. So I'm not declaring a cross-Pond war as I make some changes.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch whom you're accusing of having quirks! Just possibly we Colonials are further refining the King's English and actually working out the quirks you created.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relative to the Plot section content, I think the recommendations in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot have merit. Word count is about 700 at this point, and since the plot isn't complex it could be trimmed a bit. Also, guidelines state that the section should be self-contained, so details contained in the Lead and Cast sections should be repeated in Plot. In fact, this article really doesn't need a Cast section since the pertinent info can be adequately handled within Plot. Thoughts?
Jim Dunning | talk 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Too clever"? Wow. I'll have to check that out.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree that my edit with the parenthetically trapped "therefore" is ghastly, and I can't believe I did it. The others are areas I haven't visited yet at all or with much thoroughness. As for "verisimilitude", I plead guilty . . . of carefully selecting that word over "realism". It is concise and specific to the issue, whereas "realism" has multiple definitions and connotations, none of which are to the point. Verisimilitude has only two, very closely related meanings: "the appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true". Realism, however, has numerous definitions, many dealing with philosophical, artistic and literary movements, as well as mental states. Thus my selection. I stand by it.

Anyway, that aside, I'll continue to work on the article, as others can and will. They are welcome to improve on my humble efforts.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the change you made for verisimilitude. You may want to compare Verisimilitude with Realism, which may cause you to reconsider replacing "verisimilitude" with "realism".
Jim Dunning | talk 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E.T.

OK, ... How do i link the Universal Motion Picture List to the section I added? Oh and Universal Studios is putting out a second E.T. in 2010, (So i got it wrong by 1 year anyway...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamButton321 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A day in the life of Alientraveller

Wake up
Have breakfast
Go to work
Revert latest deranged Bond 22 title rumour

-)- X201 (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ET Sequel

The Motion Picture List From Universal Studios states "E.T. 2: Nocturnal Fears" will be released by 2010. I just thought I'd add it to ET. Whoever added it obviously has some reliable sources from somewhere.

I still don't know why they would make a sequel to it, I mean LEAVE it alone! It's been years and years since the first one came out - it's a bit pointless.

SamButton321 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raiders of the Lost Ark - is it time?

Do you feel that it's ready for an FAC? If not, do you need any additional resources? Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not get an FA now and get the article on the main page on the same day as Indy 4 releases? That seems like a more festive plan, too! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry - odd edit conflict

When I edited the LOTR talk page, there was an editing conflict; when I merged the two edits; it somehow overwrote your removal of my edit. but I'm not sure how you were able to see my edit before I submitted it though; I only submitted it once. You can go ahead and remove it again. What are your views on the matter? 207.12.38.107 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

I have a real love/hate opinion of Torchwood, but it's so watchable. Wednesday's episode was fun, though like I said to Zythe, I hope John is fleshed out a little more later in the season. I read this review early last week and it has a lot of good points; season 2 seems to be funnier and more self-deprecating, I'm glad Russel etc. are taking the criticism of season 1 on board.  Paul  730 00:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a link to an article but the video is great too. How should I cite the video do you think, just use the cite video template?  Paul  730 14:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input earlier about Jack's page. Yeah, the general consensus seems to be that the plot could be beefed up a little. At some point today I'll take both yours and Bignole's comments and try to flesh it out again. Is there anything you think should be included, besides his real name stuff?  Paul  730 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problems I saw with that was sounding too much like a teaser - we don't know what's going to happen with Grey, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. As for the living through the 21st century thing, it wasn't portrayed onscreen so wasn't really an "Appearance"... I don't want it to be a character history because of WP:IN-U. Damn you time travellers and your non-linear lives! I'll try to cover it round about the Master trilogy, since "Utopia" was a very exposition heavy episode, I think we can afford spending a bit longer explaining it than other episodes..  Paul  730 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There, I've worked on it a little, tell me what you think. I've fleshed out details of his first appearance and the episode when he first dies, though I'm worried all this time travel stuff is confusing for a non-fan. Maybe leave your opinions on the article talk page? That's where Bignole, Zythe, and I are discussing it.  Paul  730 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] crossover citation

Can you save us a headache and put a cite on that bit about R Downey jr in hulk? thanks. ThuranX (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Faster service than my local taco bell! Thanks man. I just looked at that and thought, lots of people will revert that as fannish speculation without a source. If that came from an IP, in fact, I'd probably have reverted it for just that reason. ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm excited aswell, but still, maintaining professionalism in the face of awesome news is important, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I think that we'd be better off waiting for the successes of Hulk and Iron Man, which is no doubt what the studios are doing. if both are blockbusters, there will be enough hype to create sizable 'crossover/spin-off' sections on both pages, and an entry for it on the template, but right now, I believe that we're just seeing the highest hopes and expectations, and some of it from people not in a position to speak 'officially' about that , like Favreau, who is simply saying he'd like to get the job. Of course, so would each of the other 4 directors, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was really appropriate to mention Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk in each others' preceding/succeeding attributes in the infoboxes. I understand that they'll both have cameo scenes, but is this really enough to warrant mention of an entire film? The connection is not chronological in a major sense and more like an Easter egg. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that these films are largely non-sequential with the exception of these added scenes. Basically, one would not need to see one film to understand the context of the other, like seeing the LOTR trilogy in that order. I think it's too much of a stretch to say that one precedes the other -- of course it's going to happen either way, they just devised the connection in an order that fit best. If anything, if this Avengers film gets made, then Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk would precede that ensemble film, not follow each other because of Easter egg cameo scenes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: State of Play (film)

Hey, thanks a lot. The constant postponements have certainly been frustrating, even if I only chose to adopt the film article in order to "learn the ropes" when I first joined Wikipedia. Any comments and suggestions you might have will certainly be welcome too; I've been adding virtually everything Google News has turned up about the project, some of which is probably a tad indiscriminate. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And lose all those edits‽ Ah well, suppose I'd better. :) I will say though, that as far as the casting section is concerned, I was fortunate. Had nothing happened to upset filming, there'd be little there but in-universe stuff. Pitt's bottling it was a godsend. Steve ^{T • C} 11:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This weekend, hopefully. The g/f is looking forward to that one, and I'm certainly more intrigued than I usually would be with a musical, especially as Burton seems to have come up with the goods this time. You? Steve ^{T • C} 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Film violence and gore doesn't bother me overmuch, especially the stylised, borderline-fantasy violence of the type found in 300 and even Gladiator. It's probably more of a concern in films where the consequences of a spear through the heart, a beheading, or a bullet to the chest aren't shown explicitly, such as in any of the late-era Bond films, where our hero is shown mowing down his enemies in a disturbingly bloodless fashion (I remember one scene in particular in Goldeneye which got my goat). As Kevin Smith (IIRC) said in This Film is Not Yet Rated, it's these films which should perhaps have the higher rating, rather than the ones which at least give a nod to realism by having dying people bleed. Steve ^{T • C} 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't had your question answered yet, Sweeney Todd doesn't particularly deserve the 18 certificate, IMO. Then again, I might have become desensitised to such things. But no matter! The gore is almost exclusively blood, so you should be OK. Best regards, Steve ^{T • C} 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a big, gaping hole in my brain where WP:PUNC should be. I've lost count of the number of times I've read that guideline, and I still keep getting it wrong! Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Matrix

RE matrix edit warring - it's not a creditable source. It's an unknown critic and the article is uncited elsewhere indicating that it's not reflective of consensus critical opinion. I know because I happen to be the author of the cited article. I don't want it cited. The person who keeps citing it is only doing it to irritate me. It's therefore not reflective of critical merit but of personal rivalry, which is a poor standard for inclusion. Leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.86.10 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Help on Batman: Mask of the Phantasm

Sorry to be asking you a stupid question, but since I think you are one of the more professional editors I've come across, I thought it would be best to ask you.

Anyway, I'm currently working on Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, and I'm not sure what to put for a "Preceded" (possibly Batman: The Animated Series?) and for a "followed by" (The Animated Series, Batman & Mr. Freeze: Subzero?) section in the infobox.Woldroot • 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Dragonball (film)

lol I asked a question though that was related to improving the article so I think my discussion should be included. :) TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol I can't, to comment on that site you have to confirm your account by giving them your credit card details, and I got spyware and stuff on my computer I havn't been able to get rid of yet so I don't want to give away my personal information. But fine I've seen you have addressed my concern about Texas Battle so I won't keep reverting it. P.S. This was not my ideal cast just the best suggestions that have been posted. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey as you seem to be the unofficial owner of that page can you do me a favour? As soon as you get news of the official trailer on youtube or something, can you let me know? If you could I'd appreciate it alot. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Same shit different smell. I wasn't implying you were a bully by the way but yeh, that would be firme. I'm not sure wether you are allowed to link youtube videos though, because I remember seeing a film clip linked on a page and then it was deleted a few days later. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bond 22

You watching the news? - X201 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have settled for any name except that :-/ - X201 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a problem with the title, I just wanted it to be something different to the ones that had to be constantly removed from the article. The clips shown on the news were brief, to say the least. If they make as good a film as Casino Rayale I'll be happy. - X201 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's certainly an interesting title. I'm not even sure what it means, put together like that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm aware of the separate definitions, but it seems like a weird pairing of a scientific word and an emotional word. It doesn't make a lot of sense off the bat; certainly not a culturally "I think I get it" title like Casino Royale. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have they got a problem with twenty-second all of a sudden? :) - X201 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you've joined them ;-) - X201 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which part of WP:MOSNUM are you going from? - X201 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Just curious for future knowledge. - X201 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad about Gilliam's second project collapse; the premise of this one sounded intriguing, with some decent casting behind it. I wonder if they'll have a documentary about the film. I've pretty much "buried" it as an unfinished film; my first, but hopefully my last (in the articles that I cover, anyway). And about Quantum of Solace, it didn't have very much information a while ago, and I figured that when you began helping with it, it was in good hands. I keep up with an awful lot of film articles every step of the way, so I took my eyes off this one so I could enjoy at least one article. :) I've sort of done the same with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, since I trust that they will be well-maintained, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Are there any films on my little list that you have any interest in? (Besides Dragonball, obviously.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your edit about that! It can be pretty tricky to shift through the bombardment of headlines after such a major announcement. Nice job of reviewing the sources. You're right, the name sounds completely inconspicuous; how dastardly of these baddies, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paquin/Rogue in X-Men

Credited where? By IMDB? Do not use IMDB as a source. It, like this website, can be changed with anyone who has fradulent information. Go and watch the actual films and look at the credits. Nowhere, in either of the three films, does the name D'Ancanto appear next to her name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.51.58 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Statement?

Regarding my edits to the Transformers article, putting the words "Academy Award nominated" before the words "based on the toy line" does not make the statement regarding the Academy Awards more notable or biased. Sentence order does not indicate notierity. The only reason I put the sentece the way I did was because "Academy Award nominated movie based on the toy line" is a better sentece than "movie based on the toy line Academy Award nominated." In order to maintain continuity with the majority of entertainment related articles nominated for major film awards, I feel compelled to change the Transformers article as well. Being nominated for an Academy Award is quite notable, therfore belonging in the article. I realize not every one knows as much about the film industry as I do, we all have to start somewhere and I encourage you to contribute appropriatley as you learn more about movies, actors, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterWalrus3 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brethren Court

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anger issues

I haven't come across the Total Film reference. (I've been kind of laissez-faire with going through my RSS feeds these days.) What did it say? If it's something that could be added to Fight Club, that'd be great. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the website has some articles, but I'd say it's weaker than Empire's website, which had decent content online and even more in print. For Fight Club, though, I'm not sure how the bit could be worked in. I'm somewhat wary of interviews where the interviewer poses a comparison and the interviewee responds, "Yes, it can be viewed that way." Do you see a way to include it?

I've actually considered lately the question of who would be my favorite actor. Norton is up there, since I've seen quite a few films because of him, like 25th Hour or Primal Fear. Crowe, DiCaprio, Damon are three other actors that I enjoy watching. Cillian Murphy may be up there, too -- The Wind That Shakes the Barley was great, but I haven't gone out of my way to see his older films. As for actresses... a little trickier, but I'd say Cate Blanchett would be one. I'd have to think about that one a little longer. How about you? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review?

The Simpsons season 9 is now up as a featured topic candidate. Feel like doing a GA Review on The Principal and the Pauper, which is now at WP:GAN ? Cirt (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that would not preclude you from doing a GA Review. See the GA nom tag currently close to the top of the article's talk page:

If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the nominations page.

If, all you have done on the article is minor copyedits only - then according to this notice - you can do the GA Review. If you do the GA Review, you may wish to say something like "Note: I have edited this article in the past, but have made minor copyedits only and have not made any significant content contributions." Or something like that. Cirt (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So, feel up to doing the review? Cirt (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review, I responded to all of your points at Talk:The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, sorry for nagging you about it. Cirt (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alien vs. Predator (film)

Hi, i noticed your work on film articles and was hoping you could give a quick skim through Alien vs. Predator (film), which is my first film article. As you are familiar film articles maybe you could spot out anything missing and such. If you are busy i understand. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverfield

The website was removed because it was a fan site, it did not have any proof behind its claims, and was only fan speculation. It also takes clips of the movie and tries to speculate on it. "When it was hit by a falling satellite owned by the fictional Japanese drilling company Tagruato" That cannot be true, since the Mid-Atlantic ridge drilling platform (according to the Tagruato website) is at the Mid-Atlantic ridge, which is over 500 miles away. You cannot see that from Cooney Island, and the Satalite would be less than 15 miles into the Ocean. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Just remember, if a website mentions someone vomiting, they probably aren't the best source. :) But yeah, there is an interesting note on the Tagruato website, that some "environmentalists" destroyed the Mid-Atlantic ridge facility. Was it really people? Was it the monster? Why would there be an earthquake in Manhattan if the monster woke up over there? (the satalite could have hit it off the coast of Manhattan, awaken it, and its moving around could have shifted things to make an Earthquake, or, who knows). They left it vague to get people like us to waste all of our time with such things and give them more money in the end. Its all marketing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond

It is written from a neutral point of view, hence the word 'possible'. I'm not saying it will happen. I'm not saying it wont, but it is likely. As for speculation, the whole 'future' section is speculative since nobody knows what will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.22.46 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a fair point. I'm sure I read somewhere that Barbara Broccoli said that the series would continue to use the names, before the 'Quantum of Solace' title was even announced. I don't know, I'll leave it up to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.22.46 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A potential chat session with Bill Oakley

We at the Simpsons WikiProject have managed to get into contact with the one and only Bill Oakley (who showran The Simpsons from season 7 to 8) and he has agreed to send us some images and to do an IRC chat in the future with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NoHomers.net, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Every member is more than welcome to take part, which will be held at our #wpsimpsons channel. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat, a page has been made where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. If you have any questions, ask myself, Xihix (who is the one in contact with him) or post it at WT:DOH. By the way, it does say members only, but we'll make an exception for you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He was with the show from season 4 - 8, so you could probably ask anything that would fit into that timeframe. As for the number of questions, there is no limit, ask any that you want answered. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Transformers

I think perhaps make one more attempt to justify its use, but if resistance to the idea persists I suggest that you de-bold the words "Captain" and "Technical Sergent" in the Humans section and all the vehicle types, etc. in the Autobots and Decepticons sections, only keeping bold those which actually have a voice actor. It was a good idea, and it certainly aided reader comprehension (which surely should be the first priority), but it's probably an unwinnable battle. However, should anyone then object to the remaining standard use of bolding in the prose sections (Actor as Character), then I'd be more than willing to help you argue the corner. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your discussion on Erik's talk page, mind telling me what [...] means in the quote? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I tried to make the exact same edit, exact same citations. :) I'll be moving these to "Announcements" for now, though, that cool? Regarding Transformers, I'm not sure... I used a very "overall" quote for Fight Club. If it comes from a specific person who may have certain biases, it can be POV to have the quotebox. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again! When you said "hang on", I was waiting with a sentence in copy/paste for the lead section, but you did a better job than me. We really have been working together too long. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the helping hand. I was looking at 2008 in film... any thoughts on formatting for either article to be consistent? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I created a stubby Planet 51 since it was a redirect. This seems to say that production will be done by mid-March 2009, but ComingSoon.net says it'll be released by then. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dragonball film

Excuse me there, was changing [[Los Angeles, California]] to [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]], [[California]] an overlink? You may respond on your talk page, I'm watching. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, but California itself doesn't seem directly relevant to the article. Alientraveller (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You mind if I link it in that form? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't mind, but it's something that someone else may remove in future. It's a bit unusual. Alientraveller (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I've been keeping tabs on the article for a while now. I'll get the message across to anyone else if needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Edward Scissorhands

The article looks extremly average and dull without images, they broaden the page (articles should atleast have one or two images) the plot is far too long for a featured article (it is completly unneccesary to provide every little detail) and the reason for my edits for the cast was that usually, it is customary for Wikipedia articles to have a cast list with the information on the character, and the information of the casting process underneath, especially if the casting information is pretty extensive like is for Johnny Depp as Edward, see E.T. The Extra Terrestrial for an example.Delia19 (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I've been editing here for a very long time, since mid 2005. I understand that not every article must look the same, but I think ES looks and reads better the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delia19 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman film series revision

In short, I'm basically rewriting it. The article is really, really ugly, and in no way deserves the FA status, (well that section at least). I looked back at all of my articles I previously wrote and realized how ugly they are. I am far from being finished. Is that what you were asking? Wildroot (Talk) 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, I'll make sure "Abrams gets his justice". Wildroot (Talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Montypythonfrench.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Montypythonfrench.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SEWilco (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to Iron Man (film)

My edit to fix the ref was in response to the appearance of the article. While I should have looked into the history to notice that an anon blanked the Samuel L. Jackson casting reference, leaving the mangled ref, I assumed that the ref was supposed to be for the Hilary Swank casting mention here. Hope that clarifies things, UnfriendlyFire (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The robots wot disguise themselves

No problem; I just thought I'd see what I could find on a quick scan through in order to keep comments in the FAC down to a minimum. I'll have a look at the rest when I get a chance tonight. Like I say, I'm not one to take offense if you want to revert anything I've changed; I haven't actually seen the film yet (which is why I've left the plot section alone), so might accidentally chop out a nuance or two ("its"/"their" springs to mind). I really don't know why I haven't watched it, especially considering that Transformers: The Movie was my favourite film in the whole world from when I was eight until I was about thirteen. Maybe this weekend. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by not understanding the "Stunts such as Bonecrusher were performed live" line is that it makes it sound like Bonecrusher is the name of a stunt, not a Transformer. Is there one specific stunt in the film involving the character that this refers to? If so, something of it should be mentioned, either in that section, or in the plot section (a quick, spoiler-avoiding scan of the latter reveals nothing which appears to fit). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Super. Thanks for the clarification. Steve ^{T • C} 08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that Wizard thing yesterday. I was going to mention it to you, but plum forgot. I'm surprised they haven't even got the articles archived somewhere else; a quick search of their site reveals nothing. Maybe they're still in the process of updating and something'll appear in a few days. Steve ^{T • C} 15:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now by the "cruder" link. All you have to do to get a cleaner link is remove the search terms from the end of that, thus. I don't know if any of the recent copy edits will make a difference to the FAC, but it might be worth dropping SandyGeorgia and Tony a line of their talk pages asking them to take another glance at it, showing them the diff of the improvements made since it was originally nominated. Steve ^{T • C} 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Excellent news. That was a lot of hard work you put in there. I'm surprised it passed; not because there's anything wrong with it, just because of the low traffic of the FAC. Still, after 700+ edits to get it there, I'm sure you won't be complaining. Now get cracking on that draft sequel article. :) Steve ^{T • C} 09:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV and film talk

Wolverine is great... in moderation. He's best as the grumpy sidekick to Cyclops' leading man, IMO, like in the Claremont 70s era. They have a great love/hate relationship I'm very fond of. But Wolverine is FAR too overexposed now to point where he really annoys me, and he used to be my favourite character. At one point he was in three X-titles, New Avengers, and had TWO solo series. And he wasn't doing anything important in any of them, he was just there to sell books (havn't I had this rant to you before? :P). He's not a leader, the movies just made him the leader of the team because Hugh Jackman happens to be an excellent leading man. That said, I am interested in Wolverine's current role as leader of X-Force, because it puts him in a leadership position he doesn't want, the last thing he wants is to be responsible for people like X-23 and Wolfsbane. Plus it has great artwork. So yeah... basically I'd rather it was Cyclops and Emma Frost and the X-Men, only without that title obviously. It probably will be about all the X-Men, just titled to draw in Wolvie fanboys.

Do you watch the new FF cartoon? It's really fun, though apparently fans hate it because of the overly-stylised animation and modernised characters. I love it, especially Johnny, he's hilarious and very metrosexual in it. Torchwood was good last night, although possibly the worst episode so far of an excellent season? I like it when loved ones discover the supernatural truth in these shows, it's always fun. It was a bloody sad episode! That poor space whale, it was nice to see Jack displaying actual emotions though.  Paul  730 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for this belated reply, I've not had much chance to be online. Anyway, yes, I hate depressed Cyke. Jean and Professor X really drag him down, whereas Emma and him have great chemistry. I liked how Phoenix telepathically coaxed Cyclops out of his grief in the comics so he could reform the X-Men with Emma, it was a really convenient way of avoiding months of "Oh God, Jean!!!!! How could you leave me.... AGAIN!!!" I don't really recall cartoon Doom, isn't he based on his Ultimate version? I think Doctor Doom is the place where the Marvel movies dropped the ball worst of all.  Paul  730 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big Abomination fan, I think the only comics I've read featuring him are She-Hulk and Ultimates, and he had minor roles in both. He looks okay, it's hard to judge when I'm not attached to the character and it's only a toy, not the actual SFX. They specifically made him less fishy, didn't they? I remember reading that somewhere, probably the Wikipedia article. What's Abomination's "thing" anyway, what's the point of him, isn't he just a physical foil for the Hulk?  Paul  730 12:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

He sounds good, much better than that sort of-Absorbing Man from the other movie. A big smash up between two gamma mutants should be fun. I am looking forward to Incredible Hulk, I just always forget about it because I never read any Hulk comics. I know you're a fan, what did/are you making of WWH and Incredible Hercules? I've heard mixed opinions.  Paul  730 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I heard WWH was pretty much a generic fight scene stretched out to fill a mini-series. It sounded okay to me, I might buy it, I might not. Hercules is cool, he's so dumb and funny, I won't buy his book but I'm happy he's getting some more face-time. Why, who are your favourite characters? Mine are listed on my user page, but I've had to be pretty strict... techincally all of the Buffy characters are favourites but I've restricted myself to just Buffy so the list isn't a million people. I think I'm going to add Roger from American Dad! actually, he's been cracking me up lately.  Paul  730 12:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I like Buffy because she subverts expectations; she's just a skinny little girl... who can totally kick your ass (I like Molly Hayes and many others for that same parodox). She isn't always a likable person and it's easy to gravitate more towards the "sidekick" characters like Willow and Spike, but as fictional characters go, Buffy has to be one of the best. The way she evolves over the course of the series is extraordinary. I generally like strong female characters like Bree from Desperate Housewives, Martha Jones, Phoenix, Storm, Invisible Woman, Sarah Connor. I love She-Hulk and the Tenth Doctor for their larger than life personalities, and how they just personify everything I love about their respective universes. I like characters who hide their true deep personalities under false exteriors because that's very realistic, like Bree, Cordelia from Buffy, the Doctor, Madrox the Multiple Man. Characters who have sarcastic/nasty/bitchy sides - Cordelia, Emma Frost, Woody from Toy Story, Roger, Cartman, I find that very entertaining to watch. I think Jason Voorhees falls into the sympathetic creature category. Wow, this comment turned into a bit of a ramble...  Paul  730 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if they have Gambit be kinda-evilish in Wolverine, that can be his deep dark secret that gets revealed in an X-Men movie. Wouldn't Gambit need recasting for X4, he would have aged? Oh, and Beak? Of all the characters? I mean, I don't mind him, but how random....  Paul  730 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need your advice on something

I have these two Wiki users who claim that their websites are beneficial to their respective articles. MacGyver [1] and Goldfinger (film) [2]. Do they hold up by Wiki guidelines for inclusion in there respective article. I look at them as fansite. What do you think? _{El Greco}^(talk) 21:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narnia

Well, I would have thought that a sequel to TLTWATW would be worthy of mention in the article, no? I wasn't trying to start a discussion.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fight Club

I realized that the intention to spin off did not necessarily mean the article was OK without mention of it. If a film had a ridiculous amount of references about its production, and we gather these references on a subpage, we wouldn't say that it'll be added later on a subpage. I think unintended themes would be pretty relevant for this article, and it would be remiss without coverage. Of course it'll be a challenge to implement the academic studies, but it was a challenge for us to implement print sources once upon a time, right? If anything, it'll be a good learning tool. I don't really feel the need to hurry to achieve Good Article or Featured Article status these days -- Fight Club is a popular enough film that I think it's likely that it gets occasional traffic (I figure that there's multiple readers for each reader that actually edit the article). My work with upcoming film articles is pretty straightforward -- plug and chug the cited content with the occasional re-sorting -- so hopefully with Fight Club I can challenge myself with this interesting obstacle. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Scheider a s Brody Picture

If you don't think it should be there start a discussion on it don't just get rid of it because you don't want it there. Dr. Stantz (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Doc Doom

Thanks for the refs! David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me (I did find a lot of anti-FF movie stuff when I was looking for source ;) David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good finds for the publication history- I'll admit, stuck with my old vintage Marvel I'm not up to date on anything other than the Ultimates. Seems to me all we need to do now is cite the powers and abilities, format some of the comic book refs to {{Cite comic}}, and expand on the legacy and reception. Then, I might get started on a hero... perhaps Iron Man, with the movie looming... :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QoS

Special offer! Reverts. Two for the price of one  :) - X201 (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CybertronBeecomic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CybertronBeecomic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek (film) revert war

I have reported Secret2 for his 3RR violation (actually, I've got a count of 11 right now). Hopefully, it will be addressed soon. --Mhking (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverfield image

Nice job finding/adding Image:Clovermonstertoy.jpg! However, in the fair use rational for the image, under "source" you have "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Cloverfieldmonster.jpg" which is incorrect. Could you change that to show where the image actually came from? Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOTR Page move

I find it interesting that a man who

1. opens a page move discussion
2. moves it despite being the one opening it
3. moves it despite there not being consensus
4. moves it despite the allotted time not being up and
5. picks by hand out of the list the ones he wishes to move

   would

6. take issue to someone who was just following his lead in the first place and
7. respond with a snipy edit summary in response to a rather sanguine one

   and

8. apparently has not read, doesn't understand, or doesn't care about the value of WP:TEMPLAR.

If you have any constructive comments, and would like to discuss the page move, and why you disagree with it, I am happy to oblige, as I detest useless edit wars and chosen to simply not revert you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WBFAN

FYI, this page is used to generate WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Harkness

Hey, User:Zythe was thinking of FARing this again and I was hoping you could give it the once over before he does, since you're a Whoniverse fan and familiar with the FA process in general. Thanks in advance for any input.  Paul  730 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Zythe is the primary contributer, he rewrote the article almost from scratch last year.  Paul  730 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

See, an in-universe small section does make some sense to me too, but I'm unsure how to approach it. I rewrote the appearances again slightly so that it's less of a hybrid in-universe/out-of-universe thing, and more strictly out-of-universe, so I think a separate "from the character's perspective" thing could go somewhere, but I'm at a loss as to how.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems great to me, I just took some brackets out from around "the TARDIS". Not sure if it's any better for it though. What do you think we could do about an in-universe section/paragraph then? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indy 4

Oops, sorry about that. I admit, I didn't read the cite. When I check my morning watchlist, I usually click on the history button to see all the overnight changes. Sometimes, if the last edit is by you or Erik or someone else I trust, I lazily don't bother to look at what's been altered. The change I reverted seemed to be the removal of information from an "approved" version, so I didn't bother to check the cite. I guess I shouldn't be so damn lazy; consider this a lesson learned. Ta, Steve ^{T • C} 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, what's so controversial about saying the film is "rooted in 1950s B-movie traditions"? It doesn't give anything away, at least to someone like me, who has tried to avoid the speculation/spoilers doing the rounds. Steve ^{T • C} 13:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fair enough. The lack of context for the information is a good reason for leaving it out. I just wasn't sure if it was that or a spoiler issue. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a minor thing, but what do you think should be said about that whole "American flag" business? I can't find anything specific which says "some versions", but there are plenty out there which don't have it in. Where I am I can't view the link to the video the IP posted; is it really included in that version? Steve ^{T • C} 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverine cast

Hurray, glad we've ironed the cast details out. Sorry about not doing a better job with the section -- I noticed the mess caused by various IPs and reverted all the way back, trying to quickly merge the paragraph to wherever appropriate without getting an edit conflict. It's an interesting choice of cast members, though Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool doesn't really excite me. He didn't exactly wow me in Blade: Trinity. It's funny to see will.i.am on there, because the first time I heard of him was because of his Yes We Can song. I wouldn't be surprised if that drew attention to him for the role. Schreiber should be interesting as well, though it's hard to imagine him as a fierce Victor Creed. Schreiber's always seemed like a straight arrow in the few roles I've seen him in. Huston as Stryker, though... I gotta say that's pretty good casting -- there's the resemblance, and a bit of a can't-trust-him look. Can't really comment on Kitsch or Lynn Collins, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty cool. What articles will you tackle with that resource? I've been reading a few Fight Club studies, but I'm also developing a side project to take on Citizen Kane. I figure that ought to be our flagship article, considering its fame, but I'm just gonna dig up resources to see if it's too much of a challenge or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be working on Fight Club first. I've been sorting out the PDFs and DOCs for ease of carrying and printing. However, it was really ridiculously easy to find PDFs for Citizen Kane. Books will be the big challenge, and they'll probably be critical for production details of such an old film. Definitely prepped for critical analysis, though. Still feel like academic studies are useless? :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was wondering how you felt about it, considering the academic studies debate over E.T. I got the impression that you weren't a fan of them in general, especially the inquiry about Fight Club's FAC to go ahead without it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I figured you'd like traffic for Transformers, too. :) I have to admit, my feelings on the G.I. Joe film are not so strong. I felt the same way with the Justice League of America film -- feels a little too quick to cash in on the franchises. Not to mention that I'm concerned about the lack of a gimmick, like Transformers had its giant fighting robots. Without the nostalgic background, I'm not sure if the film would amount to a great deal. I'm somewhat familiar with the background, but I don't think I've ever watched an episode in full or owned a G.I. Joe figure. I'll probably wind up seeing it anyway. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't hear about Superman and Batman being dropped. Does that mean they're still gonna try for a sequel to Superman Returns? Marvel's being much smarter with the build-up to The Avengers. They just need a Captain America film (too bad it won't come out before the U.S. Presidential elections) and probably Thor. As for the JLA itself, dropping it makes me think of The Nail x 2. I suppose I wouldn't mind it too much, either, but I'd love decent portrayals of The Flash, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter. (I'm not really sure if Aquaman and Wonder Woman could be as realistically portrayed.)

Definitely look forward to Ray Park in G.I. Joe... definitely will be emulating Darth Maul. Some casting choices just strike me as highly questionable, like Channing Tatum and Marlon Wayans. Guess we'll have to see what the final product is like. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was reading a diatribe the other day about how Wonder Woman was not as fathomable compared to the other superheroes because of her "mythical" background and her attire. It's excusable in the comics, but on screen, it's a bit of a stretch. (Then again, we don't question the physics of how Superman flies.) With Aquaman, I could foresee a feature film based on only him, but it'd have to include some pretty enticing elements for a mostly underwater show. My problem's with what Aquaman can do with the team that would be visually captivating and not just be another "strong" person on land. Hah, I wonder if Watchmen is well-received by critics and audiences, they'd go forward with a Kingdom Come film. That would be absolutely masterly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really looking forward to Wall-E since it'll be such a visual experience; no limitations in waiting for captioned screenings or the DVD itself! I was wondering, since we don't really seem to have the drive -- should we still aim to make Batman Begins a Featured Article for the release of The Dark Knight? We haven't exerted much effort in that direction lately. Just wondering if the drive is too little, too late or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been my only concern with having it as Featured Article of the Day. I suppose it could be argued that the presence of Batman Begins on the main page could "remind" readers of The Dark Knight coming out, even though it would only be mentioned in passing. We should definitely check out the books, though... we need more general production information. Stuff like being filmed on specific Chicago streets is pretty trivial without more of an overview. I'll try to hunt through Access World News and Film Index International for some print sources that we can use. I definitely know that there's a good special effects article in Animation Magazine that can help expand the "Special effects" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really surprised about The Golden Compass -- its special effects didn't seem any better than the others. I was actually thinking Ratataouille, too, but I took a chance that the Academy would go with the "high-brow" Persepolis (fat lot of good that did me). It was a bit more fun to watch the Oscars this year compared to previous viewings because I was more familiar with all the candidates. I look forward to seeing films like No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood when they come out on DVD. They're definitely gonna have a nice sales run. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transformers (film)

You did a damn great job on this several months ago, I'm impressed. I'm currently on early July 2007, due to all the edits you made there, I will probably be busy reading the revision history for weeks. I know I'm late to congratulate you now, but this had to be said. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matrix reversions

Hey =) Why the matrix reversions? thanks Catalyst?! (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men

Feel completely free to do whatever you like to my sandbox, I would appreciate the help. If I have a problem, I'll tell you. I do actually have a source for the publication history, the encyclopeda X-Men: The Ultimate Guide, but I haven't written up the citation template yet. So unless you think there's something wrong with it, please don't blank that. I was just going through the history, fleshing things out with more detail, I'm up to the Dark Phoenix saga ATM. But I haven't worked on anything besides that, so feel free to pitch in.  Paul  730 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

With respect mate, I do not see why Memory Alpha is unnaceptable - You have not addressed my point that other Star Trek articles cite it. Why have you not amended them?

Additionaly, FredC determined that in-universe discussion is irrelevant to marketing of the film. So why have you 'included' this on the article? I look forward to you addressing these two specific points - I am not here to cause trouble but to point out there is no violation of canon with the Enterprise being constructed on Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NX74205 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your comments which I can understand. I take it you are now going to edit all other pages citing Memory Alpha as per WP:RS? Including 'Where no man has gone before' which I'm sure you'd agree is a very important article in the context of Star Trek?

Incidently, I do not believe the other editor (FredC) was referring to a book - he regarded my comment that canon is not being broken as irrelevant to the discussion of marketing. In which case, no debate should be taking place - it is not fair that my comments be deleted on this ground and others stay in place - you should delete them too. --NX74205 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought - perhaps a new section debating 'canon' would be more relevant for the other comments in the marketing section (I accept you'll just delete mine again if I re-make them - what can I do(?) --NX74205 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Final comment: Well, thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking - I disagree but I suppose that's the point of community based sites like Wikipedia. I won't waste your time any further by editing the page --NX74205 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bionic Woman

If it is cancelled, I suppose you would just improve the article with a focus on Lindsay Wagner's character, and then add notes about the short-lived re-imagining of the series, in which a contemporary 2007 bla bla bla Jamie different bla bla bla less empowered? I dunno, I sort of found as the series sucked more and more, the less I wanted to fix the Bionic Woman article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] see alsos are unnecessary,....?

"see alsos are unnecessary, especially for a tangent topic. First thing you think about this isn't the other films it beats"...bla bla bla

In simple english please ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezzex (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deadpool

Maybe it IS his mutation! Who KNOWS what creative license they'll take with this one? We've already had Rogue and Storm with vague accents! Maybe Deadpool has a strechable mouth! ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 10:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Thank you very much. Your advice about repairing my userbox helped me. Thanks once more for help!Gevorg89 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Do you know Russian language or someone who knows it because I had some problems about translating Scary Movie 2#Parodies into Russian because there were some places in the text that I couldn't understand and translate. Those places are marked with hidden comments.