Talk:Exorcist II: The Heretic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

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

[edit] Evaluating E2

There are quite a few people who defend this film (see, eg. [1]), and in particular people who think it was the best of the three follow-up films. The cinematography and sound-track, in particular, are mostly well-thought of, even by the film's detractors. The film maybe deserves a section outlining the initial reaction, and considered reaction to the film. ---- Charles Stewart 16:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've toned down some of the more negative comments about the film, plus removed hyperbolic comment about the original ("the movie that forever changed Hollywood"!!??). I've also added info on the movie's developing cult following and recent critical re-evaluation, as well as noting Pauline Kael's enthusiastic response to the film at the time of its release.200.122.158.40 16:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is that now the article is almost too kind. There is only a passing reference to the fact that the movie bombed at the box office, and almost no negative comments about the film remain at all. The last time I saw this article, it described the movie as one of the worst films ever made. Now it's more like an E2 fan's masturbatory aid than anything else. We really need to expunge the NPOV from this article and make it more neutral; find a middle ground between the positive and the negative. 129.59.99.211 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a show about this movie (probably True Hollywood Story). Obviously it was unquestionably pro-Heretic, but I remember someone made a pretty interesting reference toward the movie being less a horror film than a survivor story/drama. Is this angle widely-discussed? 24.228.54.78 01:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the NPOV, though I dont really think any one is "favoring" the movie here. Its just that the article is too long and too detailed for an encyclopedia. I do appreciate whoever took the time to write all this, its just too much information, at least in the summary. ShirleyPartridge (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Exorcist2poster.jpg

Image:Exorcist2poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)