Jump to content

Talk:An American Werewolf in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genre

[edit]

This movie isnt a romantic comedy. It has a woman. It has a man. He turns into a werewolf and gets shot and dies. There are about 5 jokes in the movie. This is a horror movie. There is gore and decapitation and more blood.This is stupid. Delete this article and stop deleting music articles. And why is every singer under the gay icons category? Is wiki going to the dogs? -Gates, not bothering to sign in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.116.133 (talk • contribs).

It's certainly not a 'romantic' comedy but this has many OBVIOUS comedic elements
It's a perfect blend of comedy & horror in almost equal measures, how could you miss the genius comedy running through this film?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.116.129 (talk • contribs)
Frank Oz was credited on this page as miss piggy who is not in an American werewolf in London...

Miss Piggy and Kermit appear on TV during the movie. That's why they get a credit mention. StuZealand (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Landis said in an interview that its not a comedy movie.93.128.83.46 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy / horror / thriller

[edit]

Okay, let's take this to the talk page. What genre does this film belong to? Apart from the flirtation with "romantic comedy" documented above, it's been listed as "comedy horror" for a while now. User:Sennen goroshi dropped the "comedy" because he disagreed with it, I dug through the references for the article to find a reviewer highlighting the comedy aspect of it, and Sennen has now checked the official website and recategorised it as a thriller, which seems even further from the mark (and I'm not sure what part of the site he's taken that from, although it is a fairly confusing place to navigate). What do other editors think? --McGeddon 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once you go to the official site, and click 'enter the moors' a flash intro starts and says blah blah blah blah thriller. thriller sounds dumb, but thats what it says. i still think its horror rather than comedy horror, it's certainly not 'scream' or something along those lines. its a horror movie with a touch of comedy. kinda hard to deal with. i say horror. you say comedy horror, the official site says thriller.Sennen goroshi 16:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still lean towards comedy/horror. It employs black comedy rather than slapstick, as used in Scary Movie or other comedy/horror films. Its certainly not a thriller, as most people would use the term, despite what the official site says. I suppose it could go without the comedy title just because it is mostly a horror film, and many could watch it for the horror aspect alone and completely miss the humor aspects. Go ahead and relabel it if you must, thanks for discussing the issue. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
after seeing how stupid thriller looked there, Im happy for it to remain as a comedy horror, well Im not 100%, but I dont see the need for me to be an ass about it. comedy/horror it is.Sennen goroshi 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think Horror Comedy is probably the best label for it to be honest. Horror is clearly the main focus, but I think the labelling it as part comedy is important too. If nothing else it helps distinguish it from films that are 100% horror, which is helpful to people who may happen to be reading the article without having actually seen the film.

And it is certainly supposed to be funny at parts, although in more of a tongue in cheek kind of way than the usual. For example David and Jack hitching a ride in the back of some farmer's truck along with all of the sheep at the start. Or the scene where David is running around naked at the zoo. The first time I saw that part I laughed, especially at the end of the scene where you just see him scoot across the screen and steal some woman's coat in the background with only some balloons covering his crotch. Some of the extras character's names listed in the credits were pretty funny too. It even had listed "Miss Piggy as herself" and "Kermit The Frog as himself", hardly the mark of a film taking itself seriously.--77.103.237.230 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview about this film, the author specifically says this is NOT a comedy. It was meant to be a traditional horror film like those from the 40s.

Fair use rationale for Image:An American Werewolf in Londonhorror.jpg

[edit]

Image:An American Werewolf in Londonhorror.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 21:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location. Hampstead?

[edit]

I'm sure some of the scenes around the girlfriend's flat are filmed on Haverstock Hill, Hampstead. It's not mentioned in the article. Does anyone recognise the big old church? Spanglej (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Ok, I've read this sentence through several times, but cannot understand what it is supposed to mean. "This made Landis realize that he could never be able to confront the undead and gave him the idea for a film in which a man of his own age would go through such a thing." Is it supposed to say "would never" instead of "could never"? Even so, it still doesnt make much sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead celeb (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast,Cameos and bit parts

[edit]

Added David Schofield from The Pirates of the Caribbean to Cast and Cameos and bit parts. Sydtrolls (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)sydtrolls[reply]

added a link to Pirates of the Caribbean and made a minor grammatical change. Sydtrolls (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)sydtrolls[reply]

Corrected link to Pirates of the Caribbean film series instead of franchise.Sydtrolls (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)sydtrolls[reply]

Correction

[edit]

Frank Oz was credited on this page as miss piggy who is not in an American werewolf in London... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.140.113 (talk)

Thanks for catching that. Rivertorch (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she is actually -- there's a significant clip from the Muppet Show shown on a television in a dream sequence; and both Kermit and Miss Piggy are in the film's credits. Idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.41.168.21 (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scene change?

[edit]

I wonder if anyone will know if my imagination is running wild here. I used to own this movie on videotape in the 1980s and watched it several times. I just recently saw it again on television and there is a scene that I swear is different from the video I owned. While David Naughton is lying on the ground immediately after the first werewolf is shot and killed, he looks to the side and sees a body lying next to him. On TV, the body was that of a stranger - the werewolf who had morphed back into a human. But I swear on my home video version in the 1980s, the person lying next to him was his friend (played by Griffin Dunne). Does anyone know if two scenes were shot and used in different versions? ZincOrbie (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only version of that scene I've seen is the one you describe where Nuaghton's character David looks to the side and sees the body of the stranger, who as you say was obviously the werewolf who had just attacked him. Dunne's character is also lying there though (albeit not in the same shot if I remember correctly) after having been mauled by the werewolf mere seconds earlier. David runs back to him, and you get a clear view of him lying bloodied on the ground before the werewolf comes back for David. Could that be what you're remembering?--77.103.237.230 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am remembering wrongly. But I watched the video version several times and I am surprised if I misidentified the person lying next to him. I no longer have the video so I can't compare. Oh well. ZincOrbie (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

It is not clear where the $10 million budget figure comes from. Neither BoxOfficeMojo nor TheNumbers lists a budget figure. From the article text it seems like the number might have come from the book Cult Movies 3 by Danny Peary, but I don't have the book to verify and it is not clear, only suggested because it is mentioned in the same paragraph as other information from that book. If someone can verify and then reused the named references to the book, so that it is also clearly marked in the Reception/Box Office section that the budget figure is properly sourced. -- 109.77.173.25 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Collins?

[edit]

Isn't "Alex Price's" nursing colleague played by notable actress Pauline Collins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.133.12 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC) No, definitely not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3856:3500:DB1:1302:5A7E:BE93 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An American Werewolf in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An American Werewolf in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and Expansion

[edit]

This article is underdeveloped and undersourced, and needs to be rewritten. The production section is too short and needs to be expanded in more detail with proper citations from reliable sources, more information on the film's development, casting, make-up effects, and filming will need to be added in sub-sections within the production section, all information will need to include proper citations from reliable sources. The release and reception section also need to be expanded in more detail with proper citations given for its information. There are so many sources that are unsourced and should either be given proper citations from reliable sources or should be removed from the article if none can be found. Information on the film's legacy should also be added to the article with proper citations as well and the sections detailing the film's sequel and upcoming remake should be well written and well sourced. This article is one that can easily become FA if enough attention is given to it. Hopefully someone comes along and gives it the attention it needs.--Paleface Jack 18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is another one of those culturally and historically significant films to both WikiProject Horror/Film that has been sadly neglected and forgotten by editors (sighs). I've been seeing a lot of these kind of articles that are of Top or High importance that have just sitting in a very poor state of development. Hopefully someone will see this post and have enough passion for this film that it can finally be given the attention it deserves.--Paleface Jack 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Genre (From the director's vision)

[edit]

If I may interject about the genre of the film, John Landis himself said that he intended this to be a horror film with some funny moments in it. He didn't say that it was a horror comedy, but a different kind of horror film, or an experimentation perhaps. Just a thought.Traptor12 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Traptor12: While that may be so, genre classifications are supposed to represent that which is specified by a majority of mainstream, verifiable sources, in accordance with WP:FILMLEDE. While Landis might not have considered it comedic enough to be classified as such, An American Werewolf in London is generally accepted by most sources as a horror comedy film more so than solely a horror film. Here are some examples to illustrate this:
Cheers!⠀–Matthew - (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs work?

[edit]

Tag says. Anyone actually watching this? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_American_Werewolf_in_London&oldid=1204807673"