Talk:Poltergeist (1982 film)

Poltergiest 2 & 3

In the part which mentions the sequels, this part is incorrect:

"But the original motive--building a housing development on top of a cemetery, thus disturbing the souls of those buried there--was completely forgotten; the house pool was now on top of a cave where Kane and his flock met their ends."

Kane's flock were attracted to Carol Anne because she was born in the house, which was the first built on their graves.

Ramore (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Ramore

I rewrote this section to clarify what Ramore said: the sequels didn't ignore the cemetery and claim the pool was built over the cave. They simply said that the cemetery was over the cave.PacificBoy 08:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote

I feel like this article should include the quote "You son of a bitch. You moved the cemetery, but you left the bodies, didn't you? You son of a bitch, you left the bodies and you only moved the head stones. You only moved the head stones. Why? Why?" (said by Steven to Teague, the developer) because it is one of the more famous lines from the movie. I don't really know where it should go, though; I'm loathe to change the synopsis since its so well written. So.... thoughts? Also, I noticed that this is Start class; thoughts on making it better? -Elizabennet 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For making it better, it needs to follow the style at Films Project. Everything needs referencing. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This is unverified, but according to TVLand's TV's Myths & Legends, they used real skeletons because fake skeletons are more expensive. --69.67.231.125 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Location?

The article states the film is set in California, as that is where it was filmed. However, towards the end of the film, Jo Beth Williams' character, Diane, refers to the family staying at the "Holiday Inn out on I-74". I-74 is nowhere near California, and would place the film somewhere between Cincinnati and the Quad Cites, more in the "Everytown, USA" midwest region so popular in Speilberg's earlier films. Can anyone find any evidence that the film is definitely supposed to be set in CA? Brian Schlosser42 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are probably few that can confirm it was supposed to be set anywhere but California. Knowing that it was filmed in Southern California, and no attempt was made in the film to dispute otherwise, we're only left to assume we're watching a story unfold that had been cut from a cross section of a southern Californian family. Ultimatey though, the goal was probably to be able to transpose the lives and drama into a wide cross section of American life. The importance was on the family dynamic, not the locale. Kikojames (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poltergeist DVD cover.jpg

Image:Poltergeist DVD cover.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 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 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Beast

• I finally saw the movie last night. But wouldn't The Beast be Satan? It's heavily implied. Bly1993 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

There is no reason to have a trivia section here, this article is not a stub. Second of all, it is against Wikipedia guidelines. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it's only discouraged under wikipedia guidelines, not against them. The preferred way of handling trivia is to work it into the article.

More importantly, the section you deleted and are referring to wasn't a trivia section, it was a section on "cultural impact." Snowfire51 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything, I was stating my stand on the subject, and yes, it was. Daedalus969 (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated the cultural references section, for notability's sake. Some of the references are pretty significant, for example the entire Family Guy episode is basically a spoof of Poltergeist. It's not an isolated bit, as it is in some episodes. It's a pretty significant bit of content. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Poltergeist curse into this article basically because of the following:

• The rumor of the film being cursed can easily be considered just one subset of information about the film, so it makes sense to include it into the film's article.
• The rumor article is rather short, and does not seem to have a potential to expand substantially. Furthermore, much of the information provided here might be redundant with the film's article, so if we merge it, we will be able to cut down on the rumor's text, making it yet shorter.
• The rumor article is about a rumor, harming (through I think not removing completely) its relevance to an encyclopedia.
• I'm a stupid sonofabitch.

Please express your opinions regarding the merge. If we don't disagree, I'll be merging Poltergeist curse into this article within a few days.

Thanks in advance for your concern!

Alfredo —Preceding comment was added at 17:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. your best argument is the 3rd one - it's a rumor and IMHO childish. 93.172.70.129 (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd second this agreement (thirded?). Doesn't seem to make sense that it's its own article, and the mention of other "cursed" films seems really superfluous and unnecessary. Evixir (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. As there was no one opposed and action hadn't been taken for a few months, I merged the two. --Tim010987 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture references?

Shouldn't there be mention of the bit during the opening theme song sequence of the show Growing Pains, with Mike Seaver banging on the family's TV screen from the inside; as it's reminiscent of the scene from Poltergeist? —Micahbrwn (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Home Releases

I noticed the information about the last release of Poltergeist in October of 2007 still included both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats in addition to the DVD. That re-release did come out as scheduled on standard DVD that year but was cancelled on both hi-def formats with no reason given. Warner rescheduled the film for release on the Blu-Ray format for October 14th, 2008. (For verification, you can visit Warner's pre-order page here: http://whv.warnerbros.com/WHVPORTAL/Portal/product.jsp?OID=50228)

The new release will still have the "25th Anniversary Edition" banner (as seen here: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=540) even though this Blu-ray release is a year behind the actual anniversary. The release will come in collectible, non-standard Blu-Ray packaging called "digibook" which is supposed to resemble a coffee table book with pictures from the film in its pages.

Feel free to add this onto the main page, if anyone feels inclined, since it will be a while while I read up on how to edit articles here... don't want to mess anyhting up!

Kikojames (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Curse? Seriously?

I've always wondered why people take these "Curse of Some Movie" things seriously... death is an inevitable event, and the deaths of people who happened to star in or work on a given movie rarely seem to be so above the statistical odds that it can't be written off as coincidence. It starts to get rediculous though when you try to include the death of Brian Gibson, the director of Poltergeist II... which didn't happen until 18 years after Poltergeist II was released! Must be one of those slow-acting curses... otherwise known as the inevitability of death. By that logic, Gone With the Wind must be cursed... almost all actors and people who worked on the movie are now dead!

At least in rebuttal of the so-called Poltergeist curse it is pointed out the most of the deaths were due to natural causes from medical conditions that pre-existed their involvement in the movies; the Dunne murder is really the only exception to that. You can't hardly count the death of Judith Barsi... she was never in the Poltergeist movies, she was just in a commercial with someone who was... but once you allow indirect connections like that, with enough degrees you could link almost every death from 1982 on to Poltergeist movies, due to the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" effect. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Curse Follow up

I disagree with those who say that the film was not cursed. After all, Beatrice Straight only lived to be 86 years old. Her death is clear proof that those who worked on the film are cursed. And what about that guy Steven Spielburg? Did he ever make a successful film after this movie?