User talk:Bignole

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

Want to learn how to properly archive? Year 2006 archive Year 2007 archive Year 2008 archive Year 2009 archive December archive January archive February archive March archive April archive May archive June archive July archive August archive September archive October archive November archive December archive

I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do (I determine when they are closed). Thank you. See also: Wikipedia:Talk_pages § Etiquette

H2 (title change)

I thought that Universal owned the title rights as well, but I found out that Universal only owns distribution rights for Halloween II (1981). So, Malek Akkad/Trancas must own the title rights then.

Cast List and Executive Producers

Why doesn't Smallville have a cast list in its info box? Every other major series has one, regardless of shake-ups in cast, like CSI, House, Bones, Desperate Housewives, One Tree Hill, etc.

It makes the wiki entry a bit stupid, as it's not easy to find out who's currently on the show. Instead, you're made to read stupid biogs of every main character, some of which are dead, arranged in a pathetic "of overall importance" order.

IMO SV's wiki should only become a "historic reference" page ONCE THE SHOW FINISHES, not during its run.

I also think it's disrespectful, especially the Executive Producers list.

Why aren't you keeping the information current and relevant?

Halloween 2 (2009) Director's Cut

I think it would be best just to let people put a section about the director's cut since most movies that has one has a section for it on here.

Removing photo from Midnight Cowboy

Hello, Bignole, I am Harry. I was just wondering: why did you remove the photo from Midnight Cowboy? While perhaps it did not contribute to the critical discussion of the film, it most certainly contributed to the layout of the page. Without graphic elements, so many of our pages become vast expanses of "gray" real estate, harder to read, and less likely to engage readers. What harm was there in having it there? As you can see, the grayness of our pages is an ongoing frustration for me. Cordially — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about the Jason thing

Hey Bignole. I don't know if you remember, but we had a little disagreement about Jason Voorhees in 2009, particularly about Jason X with Jason's "unexplained resurrection from his death in Jason Goes to Hell", and his confirmed death at the end of Jason X. The film makers have said so, but I'm not here to argue with you again I'm here to ask you a question that's been bugging me.

As the creator of the Original Research policy here (I think), you should know better than anyone that includes unconfirmed theories stated as fact (ie: Saying "Kaepora Gaebora is Rauru the Sage transformed into an owl in Zelda: Ocarina of Time." It's a theory based off speculation and Nintendo has never confirmed it.) Well... Not trying to sound rude, especially to one of the chief admins of this wiki who could ban me with the raise of an eyebrow if you wanted to, but... um... couldn't other users fall under the impression that YOU committed original research by making statements contradictory to the film makers? I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression of the unofficial ruler of "ErikBignolepedia", besides since you created the Original Research rule why would you disobey it? Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't seen the commentary for Jason Goes to Hell (atleast of the part at the end with Freddy), nor the Jump to Death menu of Jason X. If you don't already have them on DVD, you should rent them and check. Saying that he survived would be just as much OR as it would be to say he is dead had the DVD not confirmed it. If there was no evidence, saying "He presumably burns to death" would not be original research, cause with presumed deaths there is a 1% chance of a retcon. But you made the rule, so I guess you state what extents "stated as fact" is. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

King of the Hill episode articles

Hi there. The coverage of King of the Hill on Wikipedia is a clear problem (just about every episode has an article and the fans are treating this as their community wiki). I tagged most of them for notability issues in January, but presumably I did it wrong because nothing has been achieved (am I supposed to create a central discussion somewhere?). Most of the episode articles (see List of King of the Hill episodes are obvious redirect cases, and you seem to have been involved in this issue before so your advice would be welcome. Thanks. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to help assert notability of any such episodes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Jason Goes To Hell/Freddy Vs. Jason/Jason X Continuity

I never payed attention to the special features so we're not going to go there. Whatever happens with Jason at the end of Jason X is not my main concern, but my main concern is accepting that Freddy Vs. Jason is meant to take place before Jason X and that there is continuity between the two since we're still having that issue. You say to Ghostkaiba297 that there's no real indication of where Freddy Vs. Jason falls but it's kind of obvious. The movie starts off with Jason being resurrected and lifting himself out of the ground he was apparently dragged under. Now you can ask yourself how he got there, but looking back at Jason Goes to Hell it ended with Jason being dragged into the ground. Freddy Vs. Jason obviously takes in present day 2003 as there's a billboard at the end of the movie that says Coming 2004 for a housing project during the fighting scenes between Freddy and Jason. Since Jason X starts off in 2010 with Jason apparently captured in 2008, isn't that enough to say that there is continuity between the two movies as there's clearly continuity between JGTH and Freddy Vs. Jason? Freddy Vs. Jason makes absolute sense being placed between JGTH and Jason X. Jabrona 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, that opening scene to Freddy Vs. Jason that deals with Jason rising up from the ground is implying that it's picking up from JGTH. I mean look at how that movie ended that obviously leads into Freddy Vs. Jason. I mean, Jason gets dragged into the ground and then see Freddy for a quick cameo all at the end of JGTH. Then in Freddy Vs. Jason we see Jason rising up from the ground he somehow got ended up in and most importantly, him and Freddy are together in their own movie. That definitely shows continuity between the two movies. Second, when it comes to locations that are intended to be the same in a previous movie, they can be different in a series, especially when you have such a long production gap that happened JGTH and Freddy Vs. Jason that was like 10 straight years. So keeping the same location of where Jason was pulled under at the end of JGTH to the makers of Freddy vs. Jason may have not have been much of a big deal to them. You were talking as if the makers of Freddy Vs. Jason intended to do their own thing, but again, if that was the case then they would have given their explanation of how Jason ended up buried in that ground in the first place if they didn't intend to follow JGTH (which wouldn't make sense if you think about it). But they didn't because it's implied to pick up from the ending of JGTH.

Also, I don't see Freddy Vs. Jason talking place 10 years after JGTH as how the gap production of the two movies were in reality. If we look at this rationally from the movie world's point of view and with the Nightmare on Elm Street series timeline being connected then JGTH happens after Freddy's Dead which takes place in 1999 due to an officer in Freddy Vs. Jason stating that Freddy's been gone giving Springwood peace for four years. JGTH apparently happens sometime before the movie. As for Jason being known as a legend in "Springwood", can we even say a lot of people knew about him in that area? Springwood is set in Ohio, and Crystal Lake I believe is set somewhere near New York City due to the eighth film with passengers on a boat going from Crystal Lake and Manhattan in just a matter of a few hours. Jason would have most likely been well known in his area and possibly not Springwood. So that one cop who did know about Jason would have possibly thought he was dead somewhere along the line. Also, the movie didn't have to mention the previous films. We knew about the events of the first movie and that he came back. It didn't have to rely too much on those events, such as Freddy Vs. Jason not having any characters mentioning any of the previous Nightmare movies, and the closest continuity of those films in fact having to take place dealt with the clips selected from them from seen in the opening monologue.

Your second paragraph strikes me a bit. I'm aware that the ending of Jason Goes to Hell didn't spark the idea of Freddy Vs. Jason and that the idea was thought about in the 1980s. I see the ending to JGTH as a backdoor pilot to the spin-off movie they were planning all along that finally went into production as they had to have somewhere to go from that ending now and couldn't ignore it. But what strikes me about what you said in this paragraph it that if you know that Jason X was intended to be made as a result of Freddy Vs. Jason's stalling and was set in the future to and intentionally pushed it back into the future so that it would not confuse fans in case they ever got the movie off the ground, then what's the issue with you not accepting the continuity between the two movies? If you feel that Freddy Vs. Jason wasn't meant to co-exist in the world with Jason X then what confusion are you talking about here? The only way there would be confusion is if the movie was meant to be set before Jason X. To me that doesn't make sense and most importantly, how can you not accept the fact that the movie was meant to pick up after Jason Goes to Hell especially after how it ended? Jabrona 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out though. Also, whenever I or some one else say, "it's obvious" on something it's basically implying how easy it is to see how something works based on information around it and in it. Like it's obvious to see why Freddy Vs. Jason continues from Jason Goes to Hell, why Jason X was made in place Freddy Vs. Jason; and why Freddy Vs. Jason can easily be placed before Jason X if that was the case. Jabrona 05:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Freddy had to search through hell until he could find someone who make em remember. And following Jason Goes to Hell, Jason's in hell. The way I see it, the only way for Freddy vs. Jason to be non-canon is if Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X were non-canon with the other eight movies themselves, but how can Freddy vs. Jason be non-canon with the series if Jason can be resurrected by a bolt of lightning but can't be resurrected if killed the way he was in Jason Goes to Hell. No body to strike with lightning, yet he's alive again in Jason X. And at the end of JGTH, Freddy has a cameo. A last-minute gag, maybe, but also could have been done to hint at a Freddy vs. Jason, which, as pointed out, was being planned around the time of Part VII (Paramount and New Line just couldn't come to an agreement to work together so they replaced Freddy with a telekinetic protagonist). Although the events in Freddy vs. Jason were not foreseen during the making of Jason X, were we supposed to think the battle would take place in hell or something? We know both of them are going to be resurrected and of course if they did have a Freddy vs. Jason planned they couldn't come up with some amazing resurrection in Jason X. He survives the end of FvJ remember.

On the subject of Jason's death in Jason X, by saying "Landing on Earth 2" that's kinda like a definite statement that he survived. I still think that's kinda like betraying your own Original Research rule. Without the film makers' evidence, there's no more evidence to his survival than there is to his death. He disintegrated in Earth 2's atmosphere and nothing was left but his hockey mask, can you explain that? Anyone who needs convincing can look at the Jump to Death menu, but obviously Word of God (as it's referred to on TV Tropes) isn't good enough for you if it's not stated in the actual movie. But you also say you want everything to be verified by a reliable source, isn't something stated by the film makers or on their official DVD menu reliable enough to go by? What could be more reliable than that? But just because they never officially state in the movie itself that he is dead you deny what the film makers have confirmed.

Ah, but I guess some people never change. And as long as you're in charge of this wiki, no one will force you to accept the truth. But still, we'll continue to debate it and I know a few people. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, with what you said about him "burning in Earth 2's atmosphere" (without actually saying he burns to death, as we do see fire), and what IllaZilla said about Freddy vs. Jason "set before Jason X" and that anyone with a brain could do the math on the thing, I think the whole Jason conflict is resolved for all of us. Do you think so?Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion from regs needed

I am pinging you because you have over 150 edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and have edited the page this month. I have gotten no responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Template:WikiProject_Awards and need some to resume a major cleanup project I have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University

As one of the more active contributors on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film_project) discussion, I thought I'd alert you to this "future film" article, and wondered whether you had anything to add at Talk:Monsters University#Changed to redirect as fails WP:NFF... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Headers

While it is true that no guideline covers headers, neutrality applies in this situation. There is no good reason to use such "eye catching" headers. Also, while it is a quite good article for the most part and doesn't follow the same fate of many earlier featured articles that passed under less strict FA requirements, we must remember that this article passed for featured nearly four years ago, and I'm guessing that the article hasn't had to be reviewed in any way since. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your input, please

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-it's-been-filmed might per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG might (rarely) even merit a separate article. I do agree with your assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project) that once principle filming begins, we can likley gave an article about the film Superman: Man of Steel (now a redirect), but another comment at that AFD got me thinking of how WP:EVENT might apply in relation to WP:FUTURE and WP:GNG, and so perhaps remove any perceived ambiguity from WP:NFF in same the manner considered when WP:NF was first being created.[1] You were there as one of its principle architects... so please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)