User talk:Bignole

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Contents 1 Tempest 2 ColScott 3 I'm me, and no one else 4 Invite 5 Season 7 Finale 6 Buffy template 7 The Dark Knight 8 Halloween (film series) 9 Indiana Jones characters 10 Thank you... 11 Smallville 12 Category:Featured dinosaurs 13 Halloween franchise 14 Chucky (Child's Play) 15 Susan Mayer deletion debate 16 Thanks for that 17 LOL 18 Friday 19 WikiDragon 20 Friday box office 21 LOCE request 22 Halloween 23 Randall Flagg again 24 Rollback 25 Your rollback request 26 Re: Iron Man 26.1 Break 27 Sorry 28 Nice Work 29 Freddy collection 30 Sup! 31 Re: Image size 32 Remake or reimagining? 33 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle 34 Awards as evidence of notability (fiction) 35 Halloween franchise 36 Wikicookie 37 Re: Remy Zero 38 Congratulations 39 Dr. Feelgood (Moonlight) 40 Randall Flagg 41 Friday the 13th release date 42 Sup 43 Halloween 6 interview 44 Hey 45 MOS for TV 46 Thank you

[edit] Tempest

I can't see anything, I'm sorry. I'll check again sometime tommorow (or later today, however you look at it) but I've searched a few times and found nothing useful. It seems like Smallville doesn't get much attention in the media, even compared to other cult shows like X-Files and Buffy, do you think that's because it's a small part of a larger franchise rather than it's own thing?  Paul  730 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy has quite a few individually notable episode. I won't list them all, but "Hush" comes to mind (that was listed in a countdown of the scariest moments in film/TV), as does "The Body", and particularly "Restless" in terms of academic study. There's loads of academic books about Buffy, I actually bought one a few weeks ago (and I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that it's review of "Chosen" made me well up with pride when I was reading it, it's my favourite episode), but I imagine most Superman academia would be applied more to the comics or the original film than Smallville.  Paul  730 05:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, yeah, those pages are crap, I knew you'd mention that when I linked them. Doesn't change the fact that those episodes are widely regarded as fucking awesome though, academically speaking. BTW, pretty off-topic (not completely, it's Smallville related) but were Lana's bug powers ever referenced in the show? I only recently found out she used to be a suphero called "Insect Queen" or something and thought it sounded pretty weird. Sounds like decent fodder for a Smallville episode though; Lana gets mutated by some Kryptonite-infected bug...  Paul  730 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you like Lana? I know she's considered quite shark-jumpy by fans ("Too much Clana, blah blah") so I was wondering what you actually thought of the character (I can't remember if you've already told me). I heard she's leaving next season, potentially opening the door for full-time "Clois". Smallville Lois recently got a glowing review in IGN's Babes of the DC 'Verse feature.[1] They rated her higher than Kidder because she's hotter, lol.  Paul  730 12:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I meant the continual never-ending relationship became a jump the shark moment because it just got tired. I mean, I love Buffy and Angel but I'm helluva glad they broke up after three seasons. Ooh, you better watch out, the current story of Buffy was promised to "change the Buffyverse forever" and Buffy ended up having gay sex (don't know if that was the big event though) . Who knows, maybe it'll be Clark and Green Arrow sharing pillow talk next week. ;) (Are there any gay people in Smallville? ...like, at all?) As you know, I always thought Durance was too hot as Lois, but I grew up with Kidder as my "ideal" Lois Lane so I'm biased. I'm glad you think Durance is the ideal one though.  Paul  730 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but when I was little kid, I didn't know or care how hot comic Lois was, all I knew was that the woman on the screen was Lois Lane. I guess Clark's feeling of literal alienation serves as a metaphor for gayness so they don't need an actual gay character, kind of like how there's never any gay X-Men even though the whole book can be read as a gay metaphor. Do you know how Clark/Superman feels about gays? If he's so conservative... I used to wonder whether Captain America approved of homosexuality, but he's close allies with Wiccan and Hulking, and comforted Wiccan when Hulking apparently left Earth, so I guess he's pretty tolerant. They were gonna do a story in X-Men where Anole came out, and everyone shunned him, and he ended up killing himself. It got changed because they didn't want to do such a dark story, and thank god, because Anole is great. And the rest of the cast are totally fine with him being gay, which makes them more likable characters.  Paul  730 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't want a Very Special Episode shoehorned into Smallville. There's a bunch of fans who want Andrew to be outed on Buffy just so the series will have a gay male. They accuse Joss Whedon of ignoring gay men and indulging in lesbian characters. I resent that; the show focuses on lesbianism because it's a largely feminist show; it makes sense that any major themes of homosexuality would feature women, not men. And turning Andrew into a political vehicle for Whedon to "prove" he's not prejudice towards gay guys would be a bad move for the character IMO.  Paul  730 02:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was Larry, a minor character who was played mostly for gay jokes at Xander's expense before being killed by a giant snake (phallic imagery), and Scott, who dated Buffy for three episodes before coming out offscreen. Andrew is a mostly comedic character whose sexuality is ambiguous and played for jokes. And Lorne, I guess, is really camp but not explicitly gay or straight. I strongly doubt it's any kind of conscious decision by Whedon that there's no major male gay characters, and I certainly wouldn't want one included just for the sake of it. Some people are just pissed off that there's four major lesbian characters (Willow, Tara, Kennedy, Satsu), as well as Buffy herself experimenting, but few gay guys.

BTW, you keep talking about Clark being led to his destiny and I was wondering, do you actually want to see that destiny? Be it in a movie, spin-off shows, a comic book continuation, or do you think it's better that we never see it happen? I was reading a review which said that Buffy S8 has proven comic books based on TV shows can be good, and it made me think that a proper canon Smallville comic would be a great way to continue that continuity. Maybe they'll wrap everything up on the show with a cheesy Charmed-style flashforward to the future.  Paul  730 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just thought, since Smallville is all about Clark becoming his comic book counterpart, a comic book which shows him having achieved that would be a nice mesh of medias. It wouldn't have be ongoing, a limited series by a Smallville writer might work. Did you like Superman Returns? I remember being totally bored during that film, although I enjoyed it more on a rewatch. Lois sucked. If they put Smallville Clark in the outfit, do you want the outfit or a redesigned Smallville version? You can't really fuck with the Superman outfit, can you?  Paul  730 03:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, the film wasn't original enough. I did quite like the pseudo-sequelness of it though, the fact that they erased the other two sequels from continuity. I didn't mind the costume, but your complaints are exactly the same ones I've elsewhere. Lol, you're such a fanboy. :P I remember my friend being upset because it looked "too maroon". That scene you linked was quite cool, Clark really is starting to look like Superman, he's really big. But I kept expecting him to put the cape on and run around the yard with his arms out, lol.  Paul  730 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, "it isn't time yet, we can still milk a few more seasons out of this show..." ;) How's ol' Supergirl doing? Are you you happy with her adaptation into the show. Oh, and I read Pete briefly got stretchy powers, how did that turn out because I remember you saying you would hate to have a stretchy character on Smallville.  Paul  730 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by ala Buffy? Smallville gets sucked into the Hellmouth? Clark starts training Potential Kryptonians?  :P I assume you just mean big and epic. Season 7 of Buffy actually isn't that popular - it has it's flaws but I love it for what it is and the final episode is stunning. Do you think they'll bring everyone back in Smallville season 8? Pete, Martha, the JLA, whoever else I'm forgetting. They wanted to bring back Oz and Tara in Buffy season 7 IIRC, I'm kind of glad they didn't.  Paul  730 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally just want to see Clark and Kara fighting a big old bruiser in a well-choreographed fight scene. Come on Smallville Darkseid.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ColScott

Yeah, I don't know why I bother. I approached the situation this time determined not to get riled or into an argument, and the offer's still there. If he rejects it this time, I'll do as you suggest and just ignore the guy. I appreciate the advice. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon! Oh well. Steve ^{T • C} 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm me, and no one else

Alien and I are two entirely different people. For one, Alien lives overseas in the UK, whereas I reside here in the United States.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for any misunderstanding. - jc37 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida State University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

Jccort (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Season 7 Finale

The finale is called Apocalypse and will be directed by Tom Welling and not Allison Mack after all. http://www.kryptonsite.com/ I know you're not going to post the new episodes until MSN puts them up but what about a director? Robinepowell (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm reading something that wasn't written. I'm still hoping Allison will direct the finale, since it will be the 20th episode and she was originaly suppposed to direct it. I just wish MSN or The Futon Critic would update their listings so I can post new episode titles. The only source to do so are Kyrptonsite and TV.com which gets them from Krypton because that editor finds them to be trustworthy source. :o( Robinepowell (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Had not thought of that, I was thinking maybe the beginning of Season 8 since the producers want her back so badly, it could be sort of like a "bribe" to make up not directing the episode she was originally was supposed to do. Robinepowell (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy template

v • d • e Buffy the Vampire Slayer Canon • Index • Joss Whedon Series Film • Television • Season Eight Spin offs Angel • Fray • Tales of the Slayers • Tales of the Vampires Expanded Universe Comics • Novels • Undeveloped productions • Video games Auxiliary Academia • CCG • DVDs • Guidebooks • Magazines • Music • RPGs Universe Characters • Minor characters • Sunnydale • Monsters • Powers

Right, so I'm going to discuss it on the talk page as well obviously, but I thought I'd run it past you first; here's my edited version of the various Buffy templates floating around on that talkpage. I'm not sure if I'm happy about the "Series" section, I think it needs a better name. Once we get this perfected, I start on an Angel one as well. How can I make the Buffy one red? The respective DVD boxsets are red and blue, so I want the navboxes to match because I'm insane. Do you have any changes you want to make? What do you think about the character navboxes? I think an overall "Buffyverse" (maybe not with that name) character box might work given the amount of crossover characters between the series.  Paul  730 22:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Knight

He might have accidentally done that while working on part of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's been a while. I'm just trying to ride out this semester. I've been working on a 15-page graduate paper, and my tendency to write concisely is really not helping me. Trying to add that fluff, you know? :) Nothing too new besides... seen some good films, been a little low on the edit count on the mainspace for this past month. I'm trying to find something to do this summer since I'd rather not be home being bored. I've been in other states the past two summers, and I want to keep up that up. How about on your end? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this MTV article quoting Brolin about the film's ending? I have a few different ideas about the purpose of No Country for Old Men. The sheriff was experiencing the situation negatively, believing that it had been better before. It's a "history as memory" phenomenon -- we don't remember history as it actually happened, just how we feel about it, which is not always accurate. This was reflected in the talk between the sheriff and the friend at the restaurant, but it was shown to be wrong when the sheriff spoke with the man in the wheelchair. He told a story that showed that people like Anton Chirugh are not new, that this has happened and always will be happening. My other thought was how Anton Chirugh transcended society in his ideals. I saw another Coen film, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and there was a scene in which a Devil-esque character says, "Law is a human institution." It ties into the whole "unstoppable evil" theme that's been common in Coen films, I believe. Chigurh is very fundamental; he ties himself to an obligation and will complete it, even if circumstances change (killing the wife even if it wasn't "necessary"). My parents thought that greed was the primary theme, not just with the stolen money, but with how money was used to pay off people, get them to look the other way. They thought that was the reason that evil persists, because people tend to take easy money rather than report a real concern. As for the ending, it was definitely an uncomfortable ending. Definitely experienced viewer shock. We're with Llewellyn every step of the way, and then we're robbed of true closure. It's the mark of violence. In addition, the sheriff's soliloquy about dreams was a tougher one to digest. I think it was shown at the end that the sheriff made a bad decision in quitting because he was under the impression that things were getting worse. So he took himself out of an important role in society. When he's at home after retirement, he doesn't know what to do with himself. His wife tells him not to worry about helping. So in a way, he gave up something that he shouldn't have given up. As for the dreams, it goes back to the "history as memory" deal. His dreams seem to project that, not actually having clarity but more a sense of memory. He mentions his father being in the cold and moving ahead to that "warm place", but the final line is, "Then I woke up." I took that to mean that the dreams were not reality, that there was no such warm place to move toward, that it's a cold world where we're defined in our own roles, whether we like it or not. I want to see the film again, to digest it more. It wasn't an instant favorite at all, but I thought it was thought-provoking (as you can tell from my spiel).

I haven't gotten a chance to see The Mist yet -- I really want to, though. I tried to get it through Netflix, but there's always a short wait for just-released films. Hopefully in a month or so, I'll have watched it. As for I Am Legend, was there anything more to that clip of the alternative ending? I already saw it online, and it seemed a little better. I really did prefer the book's ending, though -- it got way too Hollywoodized. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the circumstances of his death. Based on what we're given, it's hard to understand what could have happened. Have you seen the film Atonement? I had a thought about its ending compared to No Country for Old Men. As for The Mist, I'm vaguely aware of what the ending will be like, at least thematically. I haven't read the short story, but I know that Darabont added a twist that was applauded by King himself. I definitely look forward to seeing it. Also, for I Am Legend, I don't know if I have that much interest in seeing the film again, even with new scenes. It was worth seeing once with Smith's portrayal, but I was turned off by the CGI vamps. Best scene of the film, though, was the protagonist seeing/believing that the mannequin moved. It dabbled a little bit with insanity, I thought, but then the film took the annoyingly conventional path. Anyway, I gotta head to bed now. Good night, pal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I did make a review of I Am Legend online. But I'd highly recommend you see the movie first, because this video can contain spoilers. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween (film series)

I greatly appreciate the work you have done on Halloween (film series) so far. Let's try and bring this article to WP:FA status, shall we? Gary King (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If User:Bignole/Sandbox gen is done then can you copy it over so it doesn't overwrite any new edits I make from now until whenever you copy it over? Cheers! Gary King (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, the list is better than what we have in the article so far, so would you mind if I copied it over? It hasn't been edited in two days. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, would you mind if you copy it over then I will copyedit it? Because I'm not sure where you want certain things placed; for instance, I just noticed that your film-by-film lists the film's plot rather than the film's development information, as it currently is in the article. Gary King (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Also, I'm going to start a few discussions to improve the article, starting with Talk:Halloween_(film_series)#Any_good_images_for_this_article.3F. Gary King (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably more familiar with the franchise than I am, so can you suggest any images we could add to the article that are allowed? Gary King (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just went through Friday the 13th (franchise) and it looks a lot better than what Halloween (franchise) is at right now (no offense to your handiwork of course!) I know you worked on both, so I'm just saying that, I'll try and work the Halloween article towards the direction of the Friday the 13th article. It looks superb right now! Gary King (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay do what you want with the headings. I'm focusing primarily on copyediting and not as much on content as I'm not as familiar with everything about the franchise. One major thing that I noticed between Halloween/Friday the 13th is that 13th has a shortened Overview section for the general plots of the films. This looks a lot better as we do not need a summary of every film in the Halloween series. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are already headed in that direction, so nevermind then! But, as I said above, I most likely will not be able to summarize the overviews together to one coherent summary. I'll help and clean up by copyediting, though. Gary King (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Friday the 13th (franchise) looks really good. You should try taking it to WP:FAC. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the 13th article has a lot of books and DVDs as references, which will be harder to get my hands on. I'll see if I can find web references for Halloween, but that will probably be more difficult. I hope you have books and DVDs readily available? :) Gary King (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been going through your edits and looks like you edit articles that I've been interested in bringing to WP:FA status, including Spider-Man 3 (I'd like to bring the whole film series to WP:FA). I'd be interested in collaborating on those in the near future. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kickass. You guys sound like huge film buffs. I watch a lot of films, too, and a wide range of them, and I'd definitely be willing to help out. Keep me in the loop with any new projects you guys are working on. I'll jump right into Batman Begins. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Gary King (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me what Batman Begins needs to be improved before being nominated for a WP:FA? It looks pretty good as it is already. If major work still needs to be done, then a centralized todo list (like {{todo}} on Talk:Batman Begins) should be used. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It looked long to me, but then again, I am not familiar with all of the films of the series. Are they related a lot or not that much? Because I did work on Star Wars#Plot overview, and needless to say, we condensed six films into that small section. Star Wars is 110 words per film, and Halloween is 160 words per film. Gary King (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you add some (probably fair use) images to Halloween (franchise)? It is severely lacking in images, and some people suggested that images from the films be added. Gary King (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, someone finally picked up the article for GAN at Talk:Halloween_(franchise)#GA_on_hold. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones characters

I know you're incredibly busy, but tips? I'm planning a list article for characters in the film quartet, which can also be article space for characters who only appeared in one film *cough*Short Round*cough*. Should I do it by order of introduction or alphabetically? Should I link Hitler and other historical characters (who were shown on TV)? Alientraveller (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, so I can't answer your question. I'm sandboxing all the characters who are redirects to the articles of each film. You can see it in my second play pen. Alientraveller (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm in a tiz right now. Rene Belloq and Short Round's content could actually expand to their own articles. However, Marcus Brody, who is the most prolific supporting character in the series, barely has enough coverage. Should I go against the grain? Alientraveller (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely merging Brody into the main article and spinning off Belloq and Short Round, as there is a lot of analysis on those two. You can support me there if anyone objects. I reckon Mutt (LaBeouf's character if you didn't know) will probably earn an article once Kingdom is out. Alientraveller (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for having their talk pages watchlisted, haha. :) As I've told Alientraveller, since I've known both of you for a fairly equal amount of time, it's been terrific working with you on all these film articles. It's been great to be able to have support as well as constructive criticism. Thanks for the nod! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville

Wow, that's a really shitty thing for them to do. Why did they leave, you'd think they could have at least finished what they started. Was it some studio thing, cos if it was, I wouldn't be surprised. Joss Whedon once threatened to leave because the WB wouldn't let him show Willow and Tara kissing.  Paul  730 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgh, studio interference, when will they learn to keep their noses out. Well, the whole cape and tights thing doesn't seem entirely shark jumpy... Kara flies, right? And the JLA wear costumes. It's not like they're shoehorning in something which doesn't belong in the universe. And if he was a high school student in the early seasons, he's gotta be in his early twenties by now, he can only stay a love-struck teenager for so long. I hope it turns out well, I may not be a fan of the show but I wish it well. The last season of Charmed was abysbal, we're talking budget cuts, cast cuts (LEO??!!), and the introduction of annoying new characters in a money-hungry attempt for a spin-off.  Paul  730 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If they continued the series for several seasons, sure, but if this was his "coming of age" season with him settling into his Superman status quo... Does he work at the Planet yet? They could maybe start his relationship with Lois... or Superman's relationship with Lois if they go for the secret ID thing (how would that work? Clark doesn't wear glasses?). No I don't watch Ed, I've never heard of it.  Paul  730 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lois and Clark fleshing out sounds good. Like I said, I've never heard of Ed, I don't think it aired prominently over here. No doubt it still lurks around somewhere on one of the digital channels (which I don't have). Omg, off topic for a second, but they had a life-sized Jason figure in A1 comics today, it actually terrified me so much. It was so eerie seeing his eyes from under the mask, it actually freaked me out standing next to Jason in real life. I asked my friend to take a picture of me with it but he couldn't be arsed... :(  Paul  730 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno, zombie Jason, not sure what film it was from (my friend was kind of rushing me out the shop). It looked so real, except his clothes were a bit clean-looking, they could have made them more stained-looking. They used to have a Freddy one too, he wasn't as cool but he still gave me a fright everytime I turned the corner and bumped into him. There's something really creepy about seeing life-sized versions of them.  Paul  730 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would actually scream so much if they did that. There's been quite a lot of horror movie merchandise in the shops recently (speaking of which), when is Jason gonna get his finger out and make a new movie. Or that TV show that we practically wrote a full season of fan fiction for. There's a lot of gold left in this mine, I tell ya. And it's not like quality control even matters anymore in this series, it's not like we have to worry about a new film ruining it's rep.  Paul  730 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I did read the franchise page but I'm not holding my breath. Hello, Ripper anyone? That's been development forever. I want to see a trailer before I start looking forward to it. There's a YouTube channel that re-cuts old horror movies into modernized trailers that has me convinced a modern Friday would work (The Part 2 trailer is a personal favourite). I want it good and scary, come on Jason I have faith in you.  Paul  730 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Turns out you're right. Kryptonsite has posted the director for the finale and it's not going to be Allison Mack after all. Todd Slavkin is directing again. He directed "Persona". Maybe she'll get to direct next season. Robinepowell (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually we're getting ahead of ourselves. First Allison has to actually sign on for an eighth season, then maybe she'll make her directing debut. I think I mentioned this before, not sure, but directing an episode or two, could be an incentive in contract negotiations for her.

What surprises me is that John Glover, who has alread signed on, hasn't ever directed an episode yet. He's been in the film industry long then Tom or Michael but has yet to do something other then star on Smallville. Robinepowell (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John Glover is definately coming back, he's already signed. Along with Erica Durance, Laura Vandervoort, Aaron Ashmore and of course Tom Welling. :o) Robinepowell (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I did seem in an episode of Murder She Wrote and Batman & Robin, after having seen him on Smallville (both times I'd see the episode and movie before Smallville) and I recognized him right away. Robinepowell (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That I didn't know - contract wise. Thanks for the 411 Robinepowell (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Featured dinosaurs

Hi, Bignole! I wanted to let you know that I nominated Category:Featured dinosaurs for deletion. You can find the deletion debate here. My rationale is there, so I hope you'll stop by and leave your opinion. :) — Dulcem (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween franchise

Thanks. I found myself on that article by looking at your contributions and was impressed at how far it's come, I didn't know you'd worked so much on it. Great job. Yeah, I noticed the sound clip, couldn't help listening to it a couple of times, I do love the Halloween music. It's totally worth putting in the article because it's probably the most iconic part of the series after Michael himself (I said to my boss the other day that Halloween was my favourite film and he was saying how much he loved the music). Can't think of any other iconic horror music except Psycho and maybe The Exorcist but you probably won't be getting to those articles anytime soon if ever so nevermind.  Paul  730 21:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the Psycho and Exorcist themes were as iconic as Halloween and F13, just that they were iconic. Maybe not Exorcist, like I said. The Omen music is pretty famous too, I'd say, isn't it used a lot in parody? I've not seen the Psycho sequels, wasn't even aware there were any until years after I saw the first one.  Paul  730 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, it's just sort of generic organ music... religion is so creepy. Yeah, obviously Jaws, but I don't really count that as a horror movie. You could dispute that, of course, but I consider it a "thriller", whatever that means. Maybe it's too "mainstream"... ;)  Paul  730 22:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Useable source?  Paul  730 01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I went looking for sources because that "Jason will appear in Supernatural" has been sitting in Jason's article for months with no follow-up info. It was meant to happen in series 3, which is finished now I think? I don't watch the show. What happened in Smallville?  Paul  730 01:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, nothing like killing off a major character to make a good episode, Torchwood just massacred half it's cast. I saw a Smallville S1 boxset for £18 the other day and considered buying it, but the early seasons look kind of dull. Plus I don't know when I'd get a chance to watch it. I haven't even watched the Heroes DVDs I got for xmas yet. Maybe when I get some time off work I'll buy it and have a marathon. I'm watching "Over Logging" right now, it's actually so true it's hilarious. Word on the street is that South Park is on the decline; season 12 has been shaky so far. I've enjoyed it, but the "morals" have been a bit jumbled. Normally I agree with Trey and Matt but lately it's been like "What point are you trying to make?"  Paul  730 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you listen to "most fans", South Park has been in decline since season 2. Whatever, fanboys can't handle change. I agree with the reviews that season 12 is a lot of good ideas turned into disappointing episodes. It just hasn't been very funny. Speaking of TV shows in general, Doctor Who series 4 is EXCELLENT. This is the last season before the show goes on hiatus for a year or so, and from previews/gossip it really sounds like everything from the past four years is building towards a stunning finale. The only criticism it seems to get is Donna Noble - she's played by vulgar commediene Catherine Tate and most fans find her offensive. She's my favourite character! Here's a trailer, if your interested.  Paul  730 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... what? He barely overacts in that trailer at all. But yes, over-exuberance is very much a defining character trait of the Tenth Doctor so maybe I'm used to it. Have you ever seen Torchwood? I keep hearing how popular it is in the States. It gets mixed reviews over here but apparently it found it's home amongst American audiences. I like it, but it's very much a Buffy wannabe and doesn't hold up under much scrutiny. I think it falls into the "fun but rubbish" category. Here's a trailer for that as well. Is there any sci fi series James Marsters hasn't been in?  Paul  730 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, my building had a power cut and I lost the internet. That South Park episode was foreshadowing, lol. Uh... here's the same trailer, different video. Maybe that will work since it's not the BBC youtube channel. I've not heard much about Dollhouse but I hope it does well and I'll watch it if I get a chance. Part of me is annoyed however that Whedon is working with Dushku on a TV series that isn't Faith. I actually hoped for a while that Dollhouse was just a working title and it was a Faith spin-off but no such luck. :( Maybe she'll appear in Ripper since the comics have set up a close relationship between Faith and Giles... I can dream, lol.  Paul  730 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, I love Toshiko, she's my fave character in Torchwood. That Smallville trailer was brief but pretty cool - I guess that's the moment that pushes Lex in absolute villainy? Or was he pretty much a full-on villian by this point anyway? Not sure why Jack wasn't in that trailer much... maybe they wanted to keep his storylines hush hush at the time? It's an ensemble show anyway, not Captain Jack and Torchwood. Since you were commenting on Tennant's acting earlier, I decided to link you this - it's a silly little Doctor Who mini episode in which the Tenth and the Fifth Doctors meet. The Tenth Doctor's really funny and sweet in it, Tom Welling has nothing on this guy. Lol, I'm totally inundating you with DW vids tonight.  Paul  730 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mate, don't be dissing the TARDIS!! Lol, I actually thought the same thing when I was watching it, it looked cheaper than usual. Propably because it was just a throwaway "episode" filmed for charity, they didn't bother to light the set properly. Or because of the comedic tone, they made it look less dark and mysterious than it usually does. Oh well, dodgy SFX is part of Doctor Whos charm. Although the revived show can look as professional as anything else when they push the boat out, believe me.  Paul  730 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I love how you took back your insult, then hit out with an even bigger one. Excuse me mister, I think Buffy has got one of the best aesthetics on TV. Sure, it suffers a little from "man in rubber suit" synrdrome a little but that's very charming. Joss Whedon says that TV is usally just "radio with faces", but because he was ambitious and essentially ignorant to TV conventions coming from a history in feature films, he basically shot Buffy like he would a film even though they didn't have the budget. It ended up being a good choice because it made the series look more cinematic than it really was. You have to admit that Buffy is a great looking show, and if Smallville looks good as well, it's probably because Buffy set the standard! :P  Paul  730 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Eeh, mate!! I'm not liking your tone! :P What I meant was that the camera shots used are more ambituous than your typical TV series. Look at Charmed - the characters stand around the house for most of the episode talking about their love lives. When a demon bursts in, they don't even fight, they just stand on the spot while Piper blows it up with her hands. It's like a sitcom, it's... radio with faces. On Buffy, there's actual fight scenes, the demons are visually interesting as opposed to just men in black clothes, there's an epic-ness to the world that you don't find in Charmed. The final episode for example, when you really examine the battle in that, it's a just small group of people hitting each other on a plasticky little set. But the music and emotion makes it feel like the biggest battle of all time. Buffy makes excellent use of it's tiny budget and each episode feels like a little movie. I wasn't totally serious setting the visual standard, I don't know enough about what other TV shows were like at the time to make that statement. But I strongly resent you criticizing the look of Buffy. I'm not sure what you meant about it having a "set theme" visually, I actually think the look of the show changed a lot over the years.  Paul  730 01:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think Buffy is supposed to have a B-movie quality about it. It's cinematic and stuff, but in a kind of cheesy B-movie way. IIRC, Joss was given the opportunity to change the look of the show, the studio wanted to make it widesceen or something, but Joss was adament that the show retain it's small screen charm. That sounds kind of contradictory to what I've been saying but whatever... I've not seen enough of Smallville to comment on the visual but it's tone is pretty different to Buffy so I guess it's like apples and oranges anyway.  Paul  730 02:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thank you for clearing that up following my fanboy outburst. :P  Paul  730 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chucky (Child's Play)

Don't you think the article should be renamed Chucky, and the disambiguation page should be renamed Chucky (disambiguation)? Because Chucky is the only fictional character and notable character. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Mayer deletion debate

I just read what you stated after my comment to you and Paul. The main reason I didn't go about significantly improving that article while that debate was going on is because I've been without full computer access. If you check my talk page, you'll see what I mean. But my being able to help or not help was beside the point. I still stick by what I stated in that deletion debate, and I don't feel that I was being childish at all by pointing out a serious and annoying problem on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I have no hard feelings toward you for stating what you did. Our frustrations, wherever we are, sometimes gets the best of us.

Peace.

See you around. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for that

I appreciate the assist. Another question: what was the name of that movie where the dude with the tattoos and brain damage remembering his past backwards? I cannot remember the title (began with an 'M', I think). As well, are you aware of a film where the credits ran backwards at the end? How about a modern film that displayed the credits at the beginning (a la the old b&w days) of the film? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the additional assist. What was the issue. It's high time I start learning the subtexual stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Crap, it happened whilst I was fiddling around with the wording. How did you catch it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to be more attentive to that. Thanks, Big. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

I googled your name (I'm bored, sue me) and found this. Not sure if you were aware of it but it certainly made me laugh. You should never piss off a religous person... trust me, I know.  Paul  730 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? That wasn't about the origin of your name, that was another Wikipedia editor who mentioned you specifically in a prayer request because of your "anger problem". So, tell me, are the prayers working? Are you begining to "understand the beauty of serenity and compassion"?  Paul  730 16:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was searching Bignole, I didn't even know your real name. I'm pretty sure it was User:Dev920, he actually told me he did it at the time but I didn't think he was serious. He was all pissed because you were gunning for the Andrew Van de Kamp article.  Paul  730 19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Bignole, we all know you only had that article delisted because of your overwhelming hatred and anger towards that particular editor. Maybe now you'll realise that only detailed plot summaries and non-free images are the true path to enlightenment. ;)  Paul  730 12:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've always thought that article had major problems with it sourcing-wise but I have so many articles that I don't have the time or attention for that I didn't want to take that on as well. Besides, I prefer character articles. It doesn't surprise me the article is being FARed, nobody has bothered responding to any of the concerns mentioned on the talk page. I think most of the editors who used to work on the Buffy pages have moved on, and it doesn't help that the Buffyverse Wikiproject actively encourages policy violations.  Paul  730 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friday

I apologize, didn't know about the whole controversy. Regards. Chimeric Glider (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiDragon

You may want to add your userpage to Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons if you wish to have your name displayed on that page with other WikiDragons. Note that even though the link is red, the names are still displayed. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friday box office

It's counter-productive to continually monitor box office stats every weekend throughout the year in order to keep that comment relevant or up to date. Also, it's trivial information that doesn't add much to the article. While I agree that the box office accomplishments should be noted and able to provide some relevance to modern statistics, is there a better way to note this information?

Also, "This would mean, if Friday the 13th was released in 2008 it would currently reside at the number two position on the United States box office chart." reads a bit klunky. Perhaps consider changing it to "In terms of recent box-office performance, this film would rank #2 for the current year as of April, 2008" or something similar. At least consider removing the colloquialism "That would mean" as it is conversational. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Using that same logic, the film would not have placed anywhere in the top 15 at the end of each year for all of the 2000's. Look at the charts for all years listed on this page: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ The closest it came was 2004 where it would be #16--it would have placed somewhere around #28 for 2007 alone!

You're also missing the point about constantly monitoring those statistics. The point was that there shouldn't be a need to make weekly updates to statistics for a movie that is almost 30 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sottolacqua (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, why not use examples of performance by pure horror films rather than box office in general? You're creating extra work for yourself by needing to repeatedly check the 2008 box office stats and make adjustments to the ranking for FT13. Reading the comment as it is now, it comes across as if you're trying too hard to validate the success of FT13, almost as if you need to prove that it was a high performing movie. What if you compare it to recent horror movies like the Saw series, the remake of The Omen, or even Freddy vs. Jason? Those stats wouldn't need to be updated as often as something compared to very recent data that isn't entirely complete.Sottolacqua (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOCE request

I'd be happy to take a look. In fact, I'll do it right now. Sean ODuibher (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Sorry it took so long to get looked at. Sean ODuibher (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween

The Halloween remake is finally out on DVD over here (I got it for £14.99, I feel kind of ripped off) so here is my verdict at last... hmm, both enjoyable and frustrating I would say. My initial reaction was disappointment, the scene around the kitchen table was repugnant. I think there were far more subtle ways they could have depicted child abuse than simply shouting "fucking faggot" every two seconds, it was like "jeez, doesn't the writer have any other words in his volcabulary??" Things got much better when Michael killed the bully in the woods, that was a cool death scene. The scenes in Smith's Grove were interesting, but ruined again by the stupid guard (the white one, not the Mexican one, I liked the Mexican one). Honestly, the characters in the film were like clones, Woman: Pathetic slut, Man: Abusive, foul-mouthed drunk with greasy long hair. I liked Michael's mum, even though she was completely useless character, the actress did a good job. The scenes with Laurie and her friends were dull, they were lifted straight from the original and felt half-hearted. I didn't like Laurie herself for various reasons. The most interesting thing about the film was the way they made Michael an anti-hero, I can't say I didn't enjoy seeing that but it didn't sit right with me. It feels like a bastardisation of what the character stood for. Besides, Freddy, Jason, and remake-Leatherace were all abused little boys, did we really need another one? Overall it was a bit like Ultimate Marvel, an enjoyable alternate take on one of my favourite characters but I'll stick with the 616 version thanks. Do you have the DVD?  Paul  730 15:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you about Laurie not being innocent enough. I mean, I don't need my heroes to be squeaky clean, shades of gray are always good, but when she made that gesture with the bagel I was like "You are so not Laurie Strode". The thing about him seeing his family in everyone he meets is a very nice way to jusitfy dodgy writing. :P I feel like such a prude for complaining about things like sex and swearing but the film was far too vulgar for my liking. One of the things I love about Halloween is the way the horror invades a perfect suburban town, but if the town is just a corrupt hicksville in the first place, it doesn't feel as horrific. It's less scary IMO. What did you make of Loomis?  Paul  730 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there was just as much sex in the original, but there seemed to be more of a veneer of perfection in the original. Whereas in this one it was all strip clubs and abusive drunks and rapists up in your face. I dont know, it just feels more corrupt even though I know all that was going on in the background of the first film. And yes, I know it was Michael's origin and everything, but don't you think it feels wrong to explain Michael's origin? Isn't he supposed to be the killer with no humanity, no real motive? I get that it was a "reimagining" but you can reimagine something while being true to the original themes. Sorry to keep going on about this. Yeah, I have the uncut version with the rape scene. Wasn't sure what ending I was going to see, I kind of prefer the alternate one where he gets shot by the police? The fact he let Laurie go felt like a more appropiate ending for this film.  Paul  730 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. I suppose I'm being slightly hypocritical with my complaints because I never had any problem with II giving Michael motive. A lot of people think making Laurie his sister took away from the scariness of the original, but I quite liked that twist. I wasn't happy with the Thorn/brainwashing origin though, that was just silly. I think the remake would have been better if the Myers had been less trashy. Michael's father could have seemed like a perfect all-American dad in a suit, who is actually psychologically abusive, kind of like John Strode in Halloween 6. Turning the Myers into the Sawyer family just didn't feel very "Halloween". But you're right in saying that, because it was a remake, at least Zombie didn't resort to retconning and his film is better than most of the sequels in that respect.  Paul  730 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that thing about the mother's suicide. I have to say, I was surprised at how nice and normal Rob Zombie came across in his commentary. I was expecting him to be like his male characters. He admits that Laurie drew the short straw in terms of character development, that was the reason he changed the ending, to give her more balls and let her finish Michael off herself instead of being saved by Loomis. It made me appreciate the theatrical ending more, even though the alternate one is sadder IMO. Watching it again, I think I was too harsh on the remake. Now that I've gotten over my "it's not the original" fanboyism, it's probably my fourth favourite entry in the series, after the JLC trilogy (Resurrection didn't happen).  Paul  730 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're "with him"? It was me who said Resurrection didn't happen, not Zombie. Lol, as if I'm such an authority on the matter. I didn't like the way they killed Laurie, and the rest of the film was pointless. I see Halloween as three universes; the "canon" Laurie Strode trilogy which actually maintains quite strong continuity and character development, the Jamie Lloyd saga which was an interesting experiment into a possible origin for Michael which went horribly horribly wrong, and the reboot. III and Resurrection are the only ones which don't do anything for me, and I prefer to ignore them completely. I wasn't really watching the commentary for Wikipedia, just general interest in the film. It's hard to say what would be useful, it's mostly trivial anecdotes (Actor X improvised this line, we used a stunt man for this scene, it was cold that night). Apparently Laurie's bagel scene upset a lot of people and not just me, lol. We could mention the reasons behind changing the ending?  Paul  730 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg again

I might run it through peer review or something similar, but I don't think there's much to add to it (barring any new information of course). I'd like to nominate it for FA sometime, but its been failed three times now, so I was wondering if I could get your two cents on it given your work on the Jason article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hi there. I'm not sure if I am allowed to do this, but can I nominate you for the rollback feature? Even if I am not allowed to do this, please tell me that I am not allowed to do this on my talk page as I haven't quite grasped all of the rules and policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia yet. Cheers, Razorflame 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask Acalamari about if you can nominate someone to receive the rollback tool or not. I'll give you a reply as soon as I get one from Acalamari. Razorflame 02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated you for the rollback tool at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback. If the administrators there determine that you are not allowed to nominate another user for the rollback function, then feel free to request it yourself because I definitely think that you would give it good use and that you would not misuse it. Cheers, Razorflame 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have to request it yourself. I would like to recommend you go ahead and request it because I definitely think you would use it correctly. If you ever need help with the tool, feel free to ask me how to use it. Cheers, Razorflame 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Cheers, Razorflame 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Denied/May 2008#Bignole. RFRBot (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Iron Man

Not yet. I recently graduated, and I'm taking a road trip to RIT. Will be seeing it up there. You get a chance yet? If so, what do you think? Also, if you haven't noticed, my edit count's been low lately 'cause of a lot of IRL stuff going on. I'll be working in Florida this summer, so I go in a couple of weeks. Plus, I'm on my laptop, and it's hard to get immersed in editing on this little thing. I'll need to set up my still-packed-away CPU to really edit again. Hope you've been well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it. I contacted Alientraveller (talk · contribs) and he said that you guys typically wait until the DVD is released before submitting a film article to FAC? Gary King (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From the reviews of forum members, the general consensus seems to be that Iron Man was overall enjoyable. Those who didn't love it thought it was "decent" at the very least. I think a couple of minor complaints were that it felt like it was over too quickly and that some supporting actors weren't that great. Definitely look forward to this, though! Not looking forward to the Iron Man vs. The Dark Knight comparison, though... I just want to enjoy both films for what they are. (The Dark Knight continues to look incredible with the newly-released trailer, though!) I'll be at Cape Canaveral for the summer, so I can't really tell if my edit count is going to be too amazing or not. Hoping that nearby Orlando will have the summer tentpole films like TDK captioned! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about Marvel Studios's slate leading up to The Avengers? Alientraveller (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew you, and practically every other sensible film/comics fan would prefer Marvel's approach. I think Captain America works very well with Iron Man and Hulk, and Captain America is actually a prequel to the latter (and making it and Thor period pieces will be great). Thor will be a challenge, I look forward to seeing how that works out, but who else could aid the science-based heroes in a massive threat (read: a supernatural villain). Alientraveller (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely feel a supernatural villain like Mandarin or Loki in The Avengers, coupled with Thor, will make an easy transistion to when Marvel reacquire rights to characters like the Fantastic Four, who are really "out there" with aliens and sorcerers like Doom or Galactus. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's like what Favreau said in a Comics2Film interview: in Star Wars Luke and Han didn't "use the Force", and by ROTJ the Emperor was shooting lightning, and the prequels had the Jedi using full-blown supernatural powers. Kind of the case for Marvel's Avengers franchise. In any case, Downey's fantastic performance will keep grounding the movies: I hope he's not overwhelmed filming back-to-back movies. I wonder what the schedule is going to be like for the fellow playing Cap! Alientraveller (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely they'll recast or replace anybody on the film. Marvel is such a great working environment from what I've read with all that improv on Iron Man's set and letting Norton write the script for his film (and I know about the edit dispute, but like he said in Entertainment Weekly, it's normal and the coverage was overblown). I look forward to seeing all of them, Marvel Studios could become the superhero Pixar with that positive outlook they have. Alientraveller (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw it yesterday and bloody loved it. Glad to see Marvel movies finally back on form after years of toot. RDJ was brilliant, that's the first time I've ever really liked Tony Stark as a character. I read a review which said he's characterised better in the film than he ever was in the comics and I have to agree (although I'm only really familar with Miller's version of the character). So much better than Tobey Maquire!! Speaking of being better than Spider-Man, I was strangely fond of Pepper Potts. I've never read a comic with her in it (save Ultimates, in which she's just a cameo) and I was expecting a lazy stereotype, but Paltrow did a great job making the character likable. She was so endearingly awkward and stupid. The action scenes were really really good, Iron Man kicks arse! Didn't care much for the villain, but it's an origin story so I'll let that one slide. Did you stay for the Nick Fury scene?  Paul  730 01:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh mate, the cast of the X-Men trilogy and Iron Man act circles around dour-faced Tobey and his monotonous voice-overs (Halle Berry notwithstanding, obviously). And Swanson wasn't that bad as Buffy, she just wasn't SMG. She was fine for the film. I know what you mean about Pepper just standing there, me and my friend were laughing about that. I think she's meant to be a bit clueless so I didn't mind it. I liked the music, the scene were he was taking the silver suit for a test drive was really exciting, I got totally into it. My friend was shocked that Iron Man was burning people alive and killing them, but I was expecting that and it didn't bother me. The SHIELD guy... we dubbed him "the SHIELD bitch" because everyone kept dismissing and ignoring him, lol. I thought he was killed by Iron Monger but then he just showed up at the end...? I'm slightly concerned for Hulk, the CGI still looks substandard and I'm worried it's going to ruin the film. I saw you were concerned about Thor spoiling the realism of Iron Man. In the Ultimates, Thor is basically seen as a nutjob with a messiah complex and advanced technology (even though he is the true Asgardian Thor). Maybe they'll go down that route in the Avengers movie.  Paul  730 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hulk CGI makes him look like a cartoon character. And that hair... :| Might have asked this before, but who do you want to see in the Avengers movie? I'm thinking maybe just Cap, IM, Thor, and Hulk for the first one, keep things nice and tight. I'd like a Wasp/Giantman spousal abuse story for the sequel, and maybe Hawkeye, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch for the third one? You should really pick up The Ultimates btw, I know I keep plugging it but trust me. It's only four graphic novels, you'd probably find them in any good bookstore. It's a very cinematic, grounded-in-reality Avengers series, perfect for someone who's not a big comic book fan.  Paul  730 02:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree... as usual. :P I think Avengers will do well so long as Cap, Hulk, and Thor are as successful as Iron Man. The fact that Marvel Studios are taking the time to properly introduce these lesser-known characters to mainsteam audiences gives me hope for an Avengers film. And don't reduce the Avengers to a mere crossover, they're a major corner of Marvel Universe in their own right, not the Defenders. The JLA cartoons were popular, so long as they're done well, I'm sure mainstream audiences can handle crossovers. And as for one film stretching the reality of another... I kind of understand what you mean. As I was getting into Marvel, the shared universe seemed pretty unlikely to me (Punisher fought Spider-Man? Wolverine fought the Hulk?? Dracula is real???) but the fact that it's being set up as a shared universe from the start makes it work. You'd have a point if they were shoehorning Chris Evans as Human Torch into Spider-Man 4 or something, but the Avengers are meant to be together. I'm more concerned that Thor or Cap get stuck in development hell and the franchise collapses before it's begun.  Paul  730 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree. If the individual movies are popular, the crossover film will be popular (provided the quality level is maintained). Didn't FvJ and AvP do well commerically (if not critically)? And if anyone complains that Iron Man and Thor don't make sense together, or that the crossover is just a publicity stunt to make money, just bitch-slap them with the source material and what can they say? I'm sure the Avengers will work as a whole, since part of their charm as a team is how motley they are. The soldier, the scientist, the industrialist, the god... "fate brought them together" and all that malarkey. Different tones can form a cohesive universe; Doctor Who/Torchwood, Buffy/Angel, and the comic book Marvel Universe. As for different creators, aren't Marvel Studios trying their best to oversee things and keep them working well together? Maybe I just can't see your point of view because I'm so close to the comics...  Paul  730 04:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that it'll be the weak link, but give it a chance for goodness sake. You're being very cynical in the aftermath of such a sucess with Iron Man. I'm not saying I'm looking forward to Thor or even expect a full franchise from it, but I'm sure if the quality is good enough then it won't damage Avengers.  Paul  730 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming Marvel played a good part in it, because that's what I keep hearing elsewhere. I don't know how true it is. At the end of the day, I don't really care how well Thor does. I'm not a big fan of the character, the only reason I want him in Avengers is because he's a main member of the team. I'm far more concerned about Hulk and Captain America; Cap needs good casting and someone who can make the character relevant. If they can get the three that matter right, I'm willing to tolerate Thor even if his film does suck. His role in the team will be a lot different than in his solo film anyway. In fact, a Cap film isn't even really necessary, since his story would work nicely in Avengers, adjusting to the modern world and whatnot. I can't be arsed sitting through a 2-hour war film about Cap and Bucky fighting the Nazis.  Paul  730 05:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll go over it properly later, but what you've rewritten so far reads well. I've always liked the way you explain Wikipedia policy, you've helped me understand some policies that hadn't previously made sense to me so if anyone should be writing MoS, it's you.  Paul  730 19:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break

I saw the film this past weekend, and I loved it. They really seemed to personalize Tony Stark better than in the comics; in them, I never really got attached to the character. In the film, Stark was set up to be much more appealing, especially with the rise-to-success monologue near the beginning. The film was also ridiculously fun -- great action, great humor! I still chuckle at lines like "How was the funvee?" and Pepper Potts's "taking out the trash" bit. The technology in the film was fascinating in how the new suit was created, especially the computers that Stark used to fine-tune the design. I'm still laughing at how Jarvis thought an all-gold suit would be most suitable for Tony Stark. The villain was decent enough, though it felt like he went a little too psychopathic at the end when he was rationally working his way toward taking over Stark Industries. Just seemed to me that he was shrugging off good ol' capitalism in place of a techno-totalitarian global regime. It's not a huge complaint, though -- a villain is a villain, right?

I saw what you said to Paul and Alientraveller. I'm a little hesitant on a film about the Avengers myself, partially because I don't see how the different elements can realistically combine. I know the comics have done it, but I think film's a little challenging. Stark's uber-technology next to Thor's supernatural powers? I don't know. Not impossible, but they'd have to do some careful maneuvering. I would expect Captain America and Thor to be next. America should be a two-part film with the first half being World War II and the second half being the modern world. A full period piece would not be too interesting, I think. Thor, though... I don't know. Hulk is sort of scientifically grounded, so I can see him, Iron Man, and Captain America being the best start. When I look at the other members of the Avengers, though, they're not too interesting. I never saw much in Ant-Man and Wasp in the epic superhero film sense. They seem like goofier superheroes that stuck around during the darker times comics have gone through. I think Hawkeye would be a better addition, though a re-design would be necessary. Just stick to the ultra-accurate aiming, I s'pose, but I can't see Hawkeye being effectively involved in any large-scale conflicts.

I think The Avengers would be better than Justice League of America, although I can't tell if it would be great. The ensemble film would have to be really soon, within the next decade, to really be marketed as a massive team-up of the previous films. You can bet that Marvel is holding onto the technology used for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk to ensure that producing The Avengers will not be as expensive. I think it's possible that the ensemble film could cover the different styles, though... cinema can be a very flexible medium, so there could be a particular style that applies in general, with mild fluctuations for each character's different style. Not sure if I know what the heck I just said, though... :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi, I'm Yzzug. I just thought I'd say sorry for the Trivia section. Yzzug (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 04:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Work

I thought I'd just congratulate you on making some awsome Nightmare on elm street and Friday the 13th Articles. I'm also kind of new to wikipedia so i thought I might make some friends. Hope you respond back, Yzzug (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've read nearly all of your articles on Halloween, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Who do you think would win a fight? Freddy, Jason or Michael, I'm not sure about Freddy and Jason but I think Michael might lose, doesn't really have supernatural powers.

I Probably like Movies more than Comics, but comics aren't to bad.

PeaceYzzug (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy collection

I dont see why this info cannot be posted on this page when you list imdb links etc. all the time. This collection is not mine, it is a web site I found which I think should be included. You say that you could find lots more similat collections, but unless you have a magic google, I doubt you will because I have scoured the net looking and this guy seems to have almost a museum of NOES stuff. I use Wikipedia and I am a NOES fan and I want to see this sort of info, so I am sure other do too. The page I listed is clear, prefessional and detailed, why not inlcude it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.191.74 (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sup!

Yeah, you're probably right, Jason doesn't have the Brain capacity to fear Freddy which is what gives him power. Also Jason dies at the end of nearly every Friday the 13th movie and comes back to life in the next one. Hey, is it just me, or does the whole premise of Jason X sound a bit strange? Which do you think is the best out of Friday, Nightmare or Halloween. I'd probably say the 1st Nightmare on Elm street, I mean it was a slasher but it was more dangerous to be in Nightmare than any other slasher because Freddy killed people who hadn't committed sins, like how Jason would kill kids if they had sex, did Drugs or were assholes to other kids. Peace Yzzug (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw from your user page that you were a big smallville fan, well I've got some bad new, the guy who plays Lex Luther is leaving the show! Who would win in a Fight out of Superman and Jason, if it's like most horror movies Superman will probably kill Jason and then fly of, unknowingly Jason will open his eyes and make that ch-ch-ch-a-a-a noise and then the credits will roll. Peace Yzzug (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be an awesome movie if Jason had a Kryptonite Machete. lol.Or Batman vs Freddy, Freddy would probably Batman unless Superman got involved, then superman would Smash Freddy. Is there a Justice League Movie being made? I think I heard about one but I don't remember. Do you like spiderman Movies? I think they're alright, but they need Mysterio. Gotta go Yzzug (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image size

Oh, sorry, I had no idea about that policy; its just that the picture was so small and what's the point of having it if you can't see anything? Does the policy say that we can't enlarge it at all, or does it say that it is better not to? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a fair explanation. Nicely worded and now I can say I agree. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remake or reimagining?

Hi Bignole. I just thought I'd leave you a message seeing as you're one of the main contributers to the new Halloween article. An unregistered user and I have been reverting each other, and I thought you should settle this. Thank you for taking the time to read, and the help, if able. --JpGrB 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle

Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?

I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.

Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.

So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards as evidence of notability (fiction)

I would be grateful if you would make your viewpoint known at Notability (fiction): AFI example, as I believe your earlier points could result in the guideline being changed.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween franchise

Bignole, I think this article needs some writing improvement before its ready to be listed as GA. Based on the remarks I've seen, however, I'm afraid that it's going to go GA without its quality improving. I may not find time till tomorrow to point to some of my specific concerns (Indiana Jones tonight), but I will start working on the article this weekend. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

[edit] Re: Remy Zero

Yeah I realised, but I thought that since it was a picture from Smallville, it would probably be copyrighted, and the uploader just falsely said that it was a free image. The link is here: www.flickr.com/photos/14336567@N04/1557555740/ if you want to check it out. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you replied. Well I probably could claim that there is "no free alternative" of a picture of Remy Zero with the Smallville cast? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Well we finally did it! We managed to get an episode whose "only real world information ... isn't enough to justify [an] individual [article]" to GA status. Shows that a little faith can go a long way. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Feelgood (Moonlight)

Hi, this page is now deleted so you can carry out your page move. Thanks, Mallanox 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No sooner said...! Mallanox 12:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

If I get the time this week, I'll try to fill in the citation neededs as I think I have all the books with Flagg in it. (The Stand is the only one I'm not totally familar with, but I can ask around if I have to) After that, do you think its ready for FA? I'll probably run it by peer review. Also, I might have asked this before, but is there anyway I can reinclude the picture of Walter o'Dim as that's Flagg's most significant persona in The Dark Tower? What would need to be added? Thanks again for your help on the article.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should mention the metal band Randall Flagg (go here) under the impact section, or would that count as original research? I mean, the name is pretty obvious but I haven't found anything really concrete that confirms why they chose the name.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, they mention it in this interview, but its pretty brief.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friday the 13th release date

Here's your official announcement about the release date for Friday the 13th being released when I said it would be released: http://www.fridaythe13thfilms.com/films/newfriday.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamintchip (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, fridaythe13thfilms.com is not a fan site. It is the official site of the series. Second of all, Platinum Dunes, the production company for the new Friday the 13th movie, has their official website hosted at bloody-disgusting.com/platinumdunes. Since bloody-disgusting hosts the production company of the movie, can we just agree that the date listed on the bloody-disgusting information page for the film is the official date? Since you seem to have some problem with all of the official references I've supplied, could you just fix the page to reflect the release date, or stop being mean and find a reference that satisfies you better and then fix the page? There's 600+ references to that date on the following google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22friday+the+13th%22+%22february+13+2009%22 . Thank you. (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sup

Hey! Sorry I haven't responded for ages, my computer broke. Hows wiki treating you? I'm really bored so I'm writing this at skool. Hey is there a remake of Nightmare on elm street coming. Gotta go, Peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzzug (talk • contribs) 00:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween 6 interview

Would this be a useable source? It's a great interview with the writer of Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers and he goes into quite a bit of detail about how the film changed (re: became shite) as it moved from script to screen. Would be perfect for that film article, and more immediately, the franchise page. There's also some exellent characterization info for Michael, he reiterates how Michael is a "sexual deviant" and explains how he tried to delve into his supernatural powers. I actually bought that film a couple days ago on DVD (my video player is broken so I'm rebuying a lot of old films) and tried to watch it with an open mind. There's actually a lot of good stuff in there, I can see a lot of the writer's intention to tie it into the original and it's a shame it turned out so poor. I really enjoy Paul Rudd as Tommy, as you know, I think Farrand's plan to turn him into Loomis' sucessor is quite apparent in the finished film, it's a pity he was only in the one movie (played by Rudd, at least). It would have been cool to have the parallels with the original as well, Tommy flashing back to Laurie pounding on the door, etc. The way they treat Jamie is pretty shocking though, I would have much preferred the writer's plan to have her face off with Michael in the final act. The only thing that annoys me in the interview is how Farrands disses H20... but his complaints with Laurie's death in 8 are spot-on IMO.  Paul  730 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot people out there who dislike H20. I think the fact that it has such a low body count and focuses more on Laurie's trauma than Michael annoys a lot of people. I read a review where someone was pissed that Michael didn't kill the little girl and her mother, like it made the character a pussy or something. Whatever. I think H20 has one of the best characterizations for Michael; I love Sarah's death, the way he strings her up for her friends to find is really sadistic and harks back to how he set up Laurie's friends in the first one. Michael isn't just a slasher, he has a sick sense of humour.  Paul  730 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Michael kill kids? I thought he did, or wanted to at least. I was lurking on the Halloween message board and H20 gets a lot of hate surprisingly enough. The main criticism seems to be the retcon, the fact that three films were wiped out because JLC "came crawling back". I strongly disagree, the retcon and JLC's return were exactly what the series needed at that point. Anyway, hows everything else going for me? In general you mean? Well, I'm working a lot and hardly have any time to spend on Wikipedia, as you might have noticed. I've spent most of my time off lately playing GTAIV, which is pretty amazing. I also just watched Casino Royale for the first time today and really enjoyed it. It was nice to see Bond as an actual human being with feelings and stuff. How about you?  Paul  730 15:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was fairly obvious he wanted to kill Jamie and he didn't mind running Billy over in 5. That said, he didn't kill any of the babies in the hospital in II... I think he probably would kill kids but they're not his priority. He's focused on the family, but he's still "pure evil". Unlike Jason, who I don't think would kill a child, Final Chapter be damned. Yeah, it did take me ages to see Casino Royale, I just grew out of Bond over the years. I'll look forward to the new one though, I hope it keeps the quality up. How are you enjoying your internship, business aside?  Paul  730 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's old news now, but did you hear they're making a Runaways movie? It's written by series creator Brian Vaughn so I'm sure it'll do the comics justice. Finally, you'll be able to fall in love with the Runaways since you don't read comics... assuming it does get made of course.  Paul  730 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Yeah I thought so, is there any movie nowadays that isn't being re-made. I beat the re-make is going to be nowhere as good as the original. Did you see Grindhouse? I heard that Thanksgiving is being turned in to a movie! AWESOME! See ya Bro! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzzug (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS for TV

I suppose I am preaching to the choir here, but you probably might want to also place a notice at the talk page for WP:FILMS - as their Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines seems to be one of the most generally accepted and comprehensive around the project these days. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

a remarkably fair guide, taking the range of views into account--at first glance, knowing myself, I'll find some problems if I work at it. Only point is, prepare ahead just in case there are major changes at NOT and FICT--but I think what you did will stand on its own if necessary. DGG (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your valued comments regarding complaints - warm regards.80.195.151.245 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)