Talk:Halloween (2007 film)

Release date

Is the Halloween 9 release date October 19, 2007 PLEASE TELL ME SO , if its not than would be vandalism THANKS.

That's weird october 19 is Micheal Myers birthday. -- Metal 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

October 19th is the UK release date. August 31st is the current set release date for the USA.

IMDB

Why are we even talking about who the IMDB listed? IMDB credit listings for upcoming films are submitted by fans. I'm going to remove it as the IMDB isn't even tabloid-status, unless someone else has other evidence. Mad Jack 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

yes it is, cause rob wanted it to be on michaels 50th birthday

october 19, 1957 - present

year it will take place in

What year will the storyline take place in please tell me?

As far as I know, it will take place in 1978 just as the original.MFuture 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To those who are adding plot information and cast information

I have already warned you for vandalism. If you persist, I will have no chance but to report you.--CyberGhostface 21:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

some one should fix the plot section... whats up now is the entire movie verbatim... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.48.34 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuity crap

This is so ridiculous. Just because one movie doesn't mention the events of another doesn't mean that it's a separate continuity. OVERKILL folks. That is overkill. They all work together just fine. One continuity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.199.220 (talk • contribs)

Okay then. How do the two coexist?--CyberGhostface 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can accually peice together the new film with the second film the way it is...Watch it and you will find out.72.84.57.146 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)TheLastNightmare

No you can't... other than being a variation of the window scene, the ending is completely different. Ophois 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I went through the article and tried to clean it up the best I could, based on other FA articles. We don't list every single cast member, even if they are "famous" by some degree. If you want to have a "cameo" paragraph (paragraph, not section) under the cast list, that's fine, but we need sources to confirm who they are. The cast list that is there now is one of the individuals that are more "core" to the film. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and so listing every cast member is not necessary. That is why we have a link to IMDb.com.

I've rewritten the plot to be less "stolen" from other websites, and to be more paraphrased. I've also included information from the cast breakdown, to add a bit more for the plot. Since the synopsis isn't going to be that large until August, I've moved the production section to the top. This helps with the images that we have in the article, so that there are no gaps between areas. I've also reformatted the cast list to be more FA, and included some information about the characters. I don't have something for each character because I couldn't find sources talking about them. We need some reliable sources for the production section that talks about the casting of the principle characters. If we get enough information then we can break that into a "casting" subsection, but not until then. One of the major things I did, when I went through the production section, was remove anything that did not have a source, or was said previously. There were some things that were redundantly stated throughout the plot, and a lot of things that lacked sources. Just because the MySpace account is in the external links section doesn't mean that we don't put in-text citations. Also, we need to avoid using the MySpace profile as a source, because I also noticed that a lot of the older blogs that announced the casting of certain people have since been deleted. That would be of no use to us. I've found that many times there are sites that will report what is posted on the MySpace account, try and find those. Also, we need to avoid hearsay. Don't use sources that say something like "someone close to someone said ...", that's not reliable.

I removed that bit about the script being reviewed as the authenticity of the script is in question, as even Zombie stated that he didn't know what they were reading, but it sounded like something that was old and not even being used. Also, it isn't new to have scripts "stolen" and reviewed early. Since we cannot verify that what they read is what will be on the screen, we cannot add it. The same goes for that MTV interview where they miscontrude what Zombie said about the music. It's fan trivia, as it had to be clarified that they misunderstood him. We need to actually find sources. You cannot say something like "According to HalloweenFlash.com" and then not provide a source. We need to be able to verify that. If there wasn't a source to back it up then I removed it. If you find provide a source then we can work it back in. Also, there was a full paragraph of production information in the lead, which shouldn't have been there. The page still needs some work, and more information, but it's not due out until August 31, so we have time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just something I was wondering

Just thought you should change the plot on the Halloween remake. The character of Annie was not stabbed, she was brutally beaten and survived the movie. Keep the facts straight and stop making the page protected, when it's unprotected you get the correct info about the plot and other things. If it's left up to just one or two people, much of the infor will be incorrect. Is there any proof of any information to be able to answer my question of: Will this film be just a remake of the the first, or will it use some elements from the second film, considering that the second is sort of a continuation, because it shows what happened that same night (unlike the other later films)? Just a question I had. Thanks for any help! --JpGrB

Not the place for such a question, as it doesn't pertain to editing the article. You could read through the article, there are interviews with Zombie in there. I'd assume it's mainly just the first film. The only thing from the second they are using is the fact that Laurie is Michael's younger sister, as this movie will make that clear from the getgo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, and thank you. I just thought I'd ask, so possibly, it could be added, but thank you. --JpGrB

I'm not sure if Rob Zombie intended for Danielle Harris' character (Annie) to survive this movie, as an homage to her survival through Halloween IV and V, but she was certainly stabbed. 17 times I believe the radio reports at the end of the movie. 76.190.164.114 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soundtrackcover.jpg

Image:Soundtrackcover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Under "Plot" paragraph starting with "At the Doyle House"

Based on my personal recollection from my viewing of the film ending two hours ago, I believe the last two sentences should be revised to reflect the sheriff's stated desire to not have the baby live with the "stigma" of what her family has gone through as his motivation to drop her off at an emergency room where he states he thought "that'd be the end of it." The article currently states that the sheriff dropped the baby off at a foster home, presumably the Strode's. From my recollection of the movie, the next dialog after the sheriff states that he dropped the baby off at an ER reflects his surprise/dismay that it is another Haddonfield couple, the Strode's, that end up adopting baby Myers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.227.119 (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

semi-protected for 2 days

I have semi-protected this page for 48 hours due to a strong series of IP vandals attacking the page. Editing by new named accounts and IP addresses is blocked for that length of time.

If anyone strongly objects, please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page, or if I don't respond ask another administrator to review; I have no problem with it being unprotected if enoug people want it that way. Georgewilliamherbert 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lock the Page to where non users will not vandalize the page. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 02:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be either not protected, or edited for adding information about the Workprint version that wanders around the internet, which is full of major differences, including scenes that are in not in the final cut (some of the scenes of the final cut are missing too and some of them are entirely different). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.147.73 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I dont know what movie this article refers to, but it certainly isnt the 2007 remake. The end in particular is wildly inaccurate. 65.25.24.245 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's innaccurate? Keep in mind that there are two versions of the film out, so you might be referring to a different cut.--CyberGhostface 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the plot

The plot section (as it was before trimmed) failed WP:PLOT, WP:MOS#FILM, WP:WAF and anything else you can think of that deals with this information. It fails WP:NPOV as well, because it's written in a dramaticized way. We are not here to promote films, nor to provide a substitute for watching a movie. Notice the length of the plot section for Halloween (1978 film), it's very concise and to the point. We do not need to know every last detail of the film. It's called summary style. If you find it bland, oh well, that is the point. Plots are meant to provide context for the real world content of the article, not to entise a reader to go watch the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Sorry, bignole, but the plot summary you restored, I deleted for a reason: It's terribly written. I think it's much easier to have a plot summary that's too long, and clip off irrelevant information, than to have a plot summary that is just plain mish mash. Some examples:

Ten-year-old Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) is tormented by his family, and school bullies, as well as showing an interest in masks and killing animals.

If we're going to keep this--which I advise against, as it's a lousy way to segue into a plot--it should read:

Ten-year-old Michael Myers is tormented by his family and school bullies, and shows an interest in masks and killing animals.

or

Ten-year-old Michael Myers is tormented by his family and school bullies. He also shows an interest in masks and killing animals.

In either instance, the thougths behind the sentences, albeit relevant, are poorly constructed.

He is characterized by Dr. Samuel J. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), a child psychologist, as showing "warning signs"

Warning signs of what? Loomis makes it clear in the movie that he fears Michael is a psychopath. Here, the reader is left with no clue, as warning signs are included in a cryptic set of quotation marks that abruptly close the first part of the sentence.

That Halloween night, when his mother goes to work, Michael murders his mother's boyfriend (William Forsythe), his sister Judith (Hanna R. Hall), and her boyfriend.

Here we run into the problem that the reader has not been informed that everything is happening within a 24 hour time-frame. Suddenly interjecting "that Halloween" 1) Does not work because no prior point of reference has been included and 2) Is so vague that it leaves open for interpretation by the reader that an indeterminate period of time has passed from an unlabeled point A to Halloween, point B. It needs to be established that Michael is introduced to us and committs his murders within a single day.

Michael is convicted of first degree murder and taken to Smith's Grove Sanitarium, where he is placed under the supervision of Dr. Loomis.

At this point I must interject that no mention has been made of Michael's baby sister, or the fact that he spares her from his killing spree when he had her at his mercy. Not knowing this piece of information makes large portions of the summary to come largely irrelevant.

For the first eleven months, Michael cooperates with Dr. Loomis, claiming no memory of killing anyone. His mother Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) visits him regularly, where he shows her the masks he has been creating.

The part about the masks lacks context. What masks? If we are going to leave it vague, we must remove 'the,' as it implies there are specific masks that the reader should know about. To make it correct it should read:

...shows her masks he has been creating.

Moving on:

Upon some advice from an orderly, Michael closes himself off, and does not speak to anyone.

"Closes himself off" is incredibly vague and has no context whatsoever. To someone unfamilair with the expression, "closes himself off" and "does not speak to anyone" can be two entirely different sets of behavior referred to within the same sentence.

After an incident where Michael attacks and kills a nurse, Deborah Myers, unable to cope with all the tragedy, takes her own life; her infant daughter is put up for adoption.

The proper phrase here is "in which Michael..." not "where Michael." "Where" is used to denote a physical or theoretical location, not an incident.

For the next fifteen years, Michael (Tyler Mane) continues making his masks and not speaking to anyone. Dr. Loomis' experience with Michael allows him to write a book, and give seminars on what he deems as the look of a true psychopath.

"Loomis' experience" indicates that Loomis only encountered Michael once or had one impacting experience with him, which is inaccurate. It should be "experiences." The tidbit about his seminars also indicates that Loomis is purely fascinated with Michael's aesthetics; while the segment of Loomis' seminar does focus on Michael's eyes, the title of his book and his conversations with the Sheriff indicate that Loomis, a psychologist, of course has more than an interest in Michael's facial features.

On the eve of Halloween, Michael was to be transferred to a more maximum security prison room. While being transferred, he breaks free of the chains and handcuffs that were holding him against his will and kills the guards and managers, escaping.

We suddenly encounter a tense shift. Now we're in the past, with "was." In addition, stating that Michael is being held against his will by handcuffs is completely redundant.

I could go on, but I hope I have demonstrated my point. Timmybiscool 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bignole

I do not wish to engage in a revert war or have to appeal to "higher powers." If you like, simply go through the "too long" version and clip out what you deem irrelevant. It is far easier than having to completely re-word the above version and correct all of its terrible grammar and other errors.Timmybiscool 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about you take your own advice. How about clarifying things, instead of reverting to a poorly written, extended version. "It is Halloween", gee thanks for that 1st grade sentence. Ten year old Michael Myers begins his day by vivisecting his beloved pet rat and wandering his house in the clown mask he intends to wear trick-or-treating that night - easily summarized by saying "he tortures animals", the details are irrelevant. How about you try explaining things that need explaining and leaving the excessive, irrelevant details out. I already trimmed it, I should not have to do so a second time because you are too lazy to go in an clarify things that you think need clarifying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are getting unecessarily rude about this and seriously tempting me to contact a Wikipedia mod. I am trying to be civil. Please explain how my version is poorly written. I did that task with the version you insist upon keeping. If you are so adamant to keep it, at least try to correct all of the errors I pointed out above. "It is Halloween" is not a "first grade sentence," it is a simple sentence that provides context for the time span of the opening of the movie, a context that is sorely missing in that version you insist upon restoring.Timmybiscool 01:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Be nice, Bignole. Timmybiscool, the article could be summarised better. I know it's difficult to remove information which you believe is important or entertaining, but Wikipedia is not a substitute for actually watching the film. Simply include the bare bones of the plot, enough to provide context for the out-of-universe information which should provide the bulk of the article. Paul730 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ending of the movie

Just a question. I may be wrong, but when I watched the movie I left with the impression that Michael had grabbed Laurie's gun (rather than her wrist) while she was sitting on him, pulling the trigger himself in a suicidal fashion. Don't know if anyone else agrees, but it would have been a great ending. Maybe someone with a bootleg copy can shed some light on this. 76.190.164.114 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)