User talk:Erik

Untitled Batman Begins sequel

Thanks for helping revert the uncited edits to the page. The frenzy to be 'first' to post about heath leger, or to rampantly edit opinion in on the page has been off the hook since comic-con started. Too much geek energy in one place, I suspect. I reverted back before your edit, but wanted to thank you for your efforts, and ask you to keep watching. ThuranX 22:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted out about five edits before yours, including opinions about Robin in the new series, some idle speculative content, and other stupid additions that lacked any sourcing, or any reason for being added. Untitled Batman Begins sequel. There's the link, if you look at the history, and compare the latest edits, you'll see what I removed. If you then click back through the previous few, you'll see all the edits as they built up. ThuranX 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued help is appreciated. It's simply amazing at this point that many other wiki-editors jsut don't GET that citation matters, esp. after all the reverts and talk page comments regarding this.ThuranX 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page

Cool news on the new title, but in accordance wih our own rigid enforcements, do we have solid confirmation on this title? If so, I think you have to request a move, but I'm not sure. I'll try to figure it out.ThuranX 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like proof to me, thanks for the quote, and let's hope it's done soon! ThuranX 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films are not supposed to goto Novel's. They get their own aritcle page. I am re-reverting The Dark Knight. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since The Dark Knight is has nothing else, it does not get the (FILM) tag. Check the WP:FILM project. I am taking care of everything. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin (The Dark Knight)

I have found the information that Hoffman has been offered the role on more than one site. If I must go to another to get a citation, I will. BOF is just the one I happened to be visiting at the time.RoryS89 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)RoryS89[reply]

My bad, man, I didn't see that it was a direct quote, I thought that it was just a statement that was paraphrased. I fixed it. Thanks for the education, but you could have just said "it was a direct quote", I am aware of how brackets work. Bignole

No, it's cool. If I make a mistake then I want to know about it. I just thought it was a little rough assuming the worst (I don't know how to use them) as opposed to assuming that I wasn't pay attention to what was there. But, it's fixed now. I appreciate you letting me know. I haven't sat down and read the entire article yet, and when I saw the change I was looking at the "differences" screen and didn't notice the quote. I thought someone was paraphrasing what someone said. Either way, it was my fault for not paying attention, so, thanks for letting me know. For some reason, I've been out of it this week (as was seen when I was trying to keep "The Dark Knight" redirect from being a redirect. I wasn't pay attention there either), probably because of summer finals. I'll try and keep my eyes open from now on. Bignole 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, other than waiting for them, the only thing that I could think of (but it may not be the correct move, but I'm not sure cause I have never had just a Talk Page needed redirecting) would be to just cut and paste the information into the correct Talk Page, and in the edit summary explain that it was made on the wrong page. You can't redirect the page because the "disambiguous page" needs a Talk Page itself. I'll cut and paste it (cause it all deals with the movie) and this way if it is wrong then they'll just let me know. Bignole 18:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove that request. I removed the redirect on the (film) talk page, so that it doesn't go to the disambig. talk page. I took the information from that talk page and put it on the (film) talk page. Everything is as it should (though I'm not sure if the steps taken were the best approach, but they were the fastest). Bignole 18:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypto

I would love citation. I googled it briefly, and I guess this actually is real. Sorry for not doing my research, but you have to admit, that's a pretty ridiculous picture. Sparsefarce 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

It's nothing that will get resolved there. It's anons coming in and seeing the link go to Venom (comics) # Ultimate Venom, and when they see that they think that it isn't going to Venom. I left a note explaining that the link goes to a section of the correct page because that is where Eddie Jr is mentioned. He isn't mentioned anywhere else so it's more appropriate to have one link going to the correct name. Bignole 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four 2

Dude, someone's been mucking with the FF2 page, redirecting it all over. Until this 'rise of' title is official, i'm gonna keep 'And The' as the main article, until we get a source. ThuranX 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template critique?

Hi Erik. Ace and I came up with this: Template:Cite your edits earlier today, for placing at the top of talk pages to use s asimple prompt for editors joining a page. It won't fix all the ridiculous edits, but will give something to point to and say 'hey, we warned you'. take a look, give us thoughts, then we can start using it.ThuranX 23:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the template's talkpage, I put a basic statement of intent, and ACS and I worked on it for a while. I hope that helps others who want to use the template apply it properly. The plan is to put it at the top of pages where rumors are posted more than facts, esp., like on The Dark Knight and the other future films where lots of geeky folks like us will go to contribute, but unlike us, many others don't know to not post rumors. If you know of such a page, just add it to the top. Thanks for looking at it, hope your trip was good. ThuranX 14:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The only places I can find that report 210 million for X3 is BOM and IMDb, and we already know the IMDb is hardly reputable anymore, and BOM.com has had problems when it comes to budgets. They have Superman Return's budget at 260 million, which it wasn't. They may be factoring in budgets from lost films in the past, which should not be done, but even then it would be wrong cause no one knows the exact amount paid to previous staff. IMDb also has 300 mill for Spider-Man, so that shows they don't know what they are talking about. Bignole 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually like to wait it out. There was such speculation about the Superman budget till Singer came out and told everyone during an interview. I have this problem with the Pirates 2 and 3 budget. Rumor was that the studio gave 450 mill for both movies, and so everyone jumped at that and said the budgets were 225 mill for each (BOM says this). But, budgets don't work that way. They just divide and hope they don't spend more, or spend less and say "hey we need to spend some more cause we have X amount of dollars still available". The world isn't the simple, and studios, unless being filmed together at the same time (and still not even then sometimes) won't write checks for two movies, one of which hasn't been filmed yet. They'll see what the other does and probably write a bigger check for the next. I had the budgets for Pirates removed till it can be made clear. LOTR as all filmed together and each of those films has a different budget. The only clear budget right now is Kong's budget, because everyone seems to be in agreement that it is 207 million, which is lower than the rumoured amount. Bignole 16:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 3

I don't think we need to be vague about the fourth villain, because Laura Ziskin has already stated that one will be Peter himself. The #5 reference goes to the interview where she says,

"And Ziskin promises one foe will be Spidey himself.

"He'll have to battle villains within," she says. "I love what we've done with this character."

We need something more than just "fourth villain". Bignole 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it reads much better now. Tell me, are you getting the gaps in the text of the different sections? I have gaps all over. It's probably just IE, but I was curious, cause other pages don't do that for me, mainly this one. Bignole

LOL..no, I meant in the Spider-Man 3 article. I'm testing it right now. I have firefox open and IE open and I'm going to compare the pages. Thanks though. Bignole

Stop changing the edits alright

Thank, you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs) 11:46, August 21, 2006 (UTC).

Excuse me you have no right alright, it is called user talk it does not matter . if you thing you have a right to edit on my user talk than you shouldnt be telling me this

Thank, You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkress613 (talk • contribs) 12:06, August 21, 2006 (UTC).

"Commercial Links"

If you flag users from adding links to movie media in other media formats (other than Quicktime from apple), you should also flag the addition of Apple links. Apple is a "commercial site" as are most sites that contain movie media. Adding additional viewing formats for movie media is not spamming. Not all wikipedia users have Quicktime. I'd like to know why Apple is an acceptable "academic" source for media and not other "commercial sites". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moviesnoop (talk • contribs) 08:05, August 23, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll be sure to more accurately reflect the media format for media.