Talk:Halloween (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Halloween (2007 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 23, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

What the hell?![edit]

Excuse me, but someone has defaced the hell out of this article and no one has caught it. Particularly the "ending" listed in the "Plot" section. The "ending" described here is FAKE and ridiculous. Please, please someone else that has seen the film like I have, please vouch that this ending listed here is fake. None of that "ending" listed here, happens in this 2007 film. The ending is corrected as this: The climax of the movie does not take place on a balcony. It takes place in front of the house. The police pull up and there is a standoff between Loomis and Michaels as the police ride up. Michael listens to Loomis and releases Laurie. Then the police officers shoot him down. That is the true ending and whoever added this ridiculous ending in which Laurie has the gun and kills Loomis is FAKE and INCORRECT. Someone please add the REAL ending. UltimateZeroX 05:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you only saw the workprint and didn't bother to actually pay to see the film in theaters.--CyberGhostface 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about. That does not happen. The police did not shoot him down. The only other cops were the ones he killed before grabbing Laurie the first time. When he released Laurie in front of the house he goes after Loomis and kills him and then chases Laurie upstairs. After they fall over the balcony she shoots him. Sorry, I saw it with my own eyes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Theatrical release shows Laurie killing Myers by the end of the film. Nothing in the article changes.--The Scourge 03:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The reception section keeps changing from "poor reviews" to "mixed." Something needs to be done about the fans of this film that try to give it too much rope. I've never seen a film with so low a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes deemed as having "mixed reviews," that's a bunch of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, the ending described here is COMPLETELY wrong and fake. But it does sound better than how it actually ended in the film.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the 2007 Halloween and it was a compleatly different ending to the plot on this site. Myers is killed by the police. Im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to where you guys are seeing this alternate ending, because I saw the film in theaters--the day it was released--and it had the ending that is written here. I have to assume that you guys are watching some bootleg version that was not a final cut of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The ending where the cops kill michael is the workprint version. Which is an early cut for test audiences and things like that. I assume this was Zombie's original ending, but it is not the ending of the theatrical release. So if you downloaded the movie the workprint version is likely what you saw. The ending here is correct, so until you actually pay to see the real movie quit talking out of your ass. 02:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)jl

I have heard rumors that this alternate ending will come as a special feature when the film is released on DVD User: Timberwolf 8:33 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberwolf101189 (talkcontribs)

Yeah, the alternate ending is on the DVD. Its a shame, though, because having seen both (Yeah I bootlegged the film but I paid to see it in theaters as well so they didn't lose any money from me) the workprint ending and the workprint itself is much better than the theatrical cut.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless we find commentary on the alternate ending, it isn't worth noting. Many films have alternate endings. If we can find critics and whatnot discussing the theatrical cut and the alternate cut, then it would be equivalent to stating what special features are on the DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

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.


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continuity crap[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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. 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[edit]

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

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" 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[edit]

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. 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soundtrackcover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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"[edit]

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 (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

semi-protected for 2 days[edit]

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¤ 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 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


I dont know what movie this article refers to, but it certainly isnt the 2007 remake. The end in particular is wildly inaccurate. 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)
Ahh, okay. i've only seen the version where Mike goes down in a hail of police gunfire after surrendering. The end as described in this article doesn't even resemble my cut. 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but here in the States that ending is what happens.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the plot[edit]

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)

The plot area seriously needs to be trimmed down to a plot. A plot is a short summary or idea about the movie. It is sad to come to a wiki to read a plot to see if I would like to see or read something and end up reading the entire film or book. Can we please trim it down to an actual plot? --Charles-Joseph 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse synopsis with plot. Synopsis wouldn't have any spoilers and be more than a general overview, whereas an actual plot description would be a little more detailed. Trust me, this baby is a dream compared to most others. See WP:MOSFILMS for a guideline on the size of a plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

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.


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)


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[edit]

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. 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This could be. I was also under the impression that Dr. Loomis didn't indeed die. When I saw the movie, I knew that Malcolm McDowell had already signed on for two more potential sequels, so I made sure to watch his 'death' scene very closely. There was blood, but not that much. I feel as though maybe Loomis was knocked unconscious by the pressure of Michael's hands. Just my personal thoughts on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys/gals, this isn't a forum. Let's keep the discussions to the improvement of the article. If you'd like to discuss the film on general terms I'd suggest going to a forum like IMDb or another similar site. You could both also register here and carry on the conversation on your user talk pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The version of the movie I've seen, Loomis convinces Michael to let the girl go and then the cops shoot him until he's dead. 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that I have never read any news reports that there are two versions floating around I would have to say that you didn't view a theatrical release but possibly some bootleg version that was not the final cut.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He has seen the so called infamous "Workprint" version of the film which to me is a lot better than the theatrical version. There are according to, two different versions of this film. One is more violent than the other. It includes a rape scene, gorrier death sequences, a different better ending, and more details involving Michael in the sanitarium. I hope both versions make it to DVD this Dec. --Charles-Joseph 02:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

the end where michael is convinced by dr loomis to let laurie go is indeed available in some bootleg copies —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Shedding some light on the plot confustion...[edit]

The ending of the movie where Michael is shot in the head by his sister is the one that appears in theaters, and should be considered the final cut. However, in the weeks before the film's theatrical release, an internal workprint was leaked onto the web, with several changes including an entirely new ending.

In this preliminary version, Michael appears and pulls Laurie from the car a few minutes after Michael gets shot three times by Loomis. At that moment, the police arrive in force. Michael drags Laurie to the walkway in front of the house, until Loomis convinces him to stop. Michael is holding the knife and Laurie, and Loomis is attemping to talk Michael out of killing her. Loomis says that he is the one that deserves to die, because he "Failed you, Michael". Michael drops the knife and lets Laurie go. Loomis walks Laurie away from Michael toward the police cars. At this point, Michael is a few feet behind them and slightly out of focus. It appears that he may have moved forward slightly after them (hard to tell the way the shot was, but I assume something must have provoked the next action). After he moves, the police simultaneously beging emptying thier guns into Michael. So Michael is gunned down, Loomis and Laurie both live. The video ends with the audio of Loomis's initial interview with young Michael, where the boy inquires about Loomis's accent, and Loomis sort of laughts off the question. In the new context of the final scene, this suggests that Loomis may have prevented everything my being more receptive to Michael's question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception[edit]

The critical reception of this movie was poor and some fanboys apparently want to gloss this over. According to rottentomatoes it received 22% positive reviews which means almost 8 out of every 10 reviews for this film were negative. JpGrB made the unintentionally comedic statement about the section of "too bad it's not just talking about rotten tomatoes" which makes it sound like rt is one opinion. Rottentomatoes is the best source we have for giving an overview of critical reception of a movie and this movie clearly had a poor critical reception. Pointing out that it received some or any positive reviews does not change this. 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have the perfect solution, remove it entirely. We don't need to qualify information that readers can do for themselves. If a film has a 22% approval rating, then it should be obvious that critics didn't like it, and there's no reason to restate the obvious.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Done.--CyberGhostface 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I never even thought of that. 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No biggy (pardon the pun on my name). Most of the time the best ideas come from group thinktanks. You say "this doesn't work," and it triggers in the mind of someone else a new idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly enough, this film did not do too well in my town. I went and seen it on opening night, and there were a lot of hardcore Halloween movie fans there at the taping. Even one of course you guessed it, dressed up like the Shape himself. I guess every town has a guy like that. When I went in to see it, I knew I was in for a totally different film in a way and that's how I went in to see it. Then while attempting to watch it, I found myself falling to sleep, and being startled by some people walking out of the theatre even the guy dressed up as Myers. When I saw this I at least had to ask him why he was leaving and his quote: "This piece of **** is what Rob Zombie gives us isn't worth being called Halloween. I'd rather be watching Halloween III than this." He did have a point too. Only the first half of the film was interesting. Too many of the same actors being used over and over by the same writer/director gets old fast. What really killed it was the second half. Perhaps being left as a prequel would have saved it?--Charles-Joseph 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry for the guy dressed up to see the movie (as stated by person above) it must have been the most dissapointing hour of his life. i hated the remake and i hate zombie for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding an Alternate Ending[edit]

Since the bootlegged version definitely exists, would anyone be opposed to simply adding a subsection for it under plot? I think this talk page shows it is notable and common enough to warrant mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capi crimm (talkcontribs) 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's an illegal copy of a film that was not distributed. There is no press for this film, thus there is no notability for said film. This talk page shows a bunch of IP address (which we cannot verify if they aren't all the same person) talking about a film they stole (which wasn't even the real film). Also, a dozen people talking about a film hardly qualifies as anything. It isn't an alternate ending to the movie, it was a reshot ending to the movie. What you need to do is find reliable sources discussing why he reshot the ending, and then you can put that in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bignole. It isn't very notable at the current state. If it released on the DVD extras or something like that, it would be notable.JpGrB 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[Small spoiler regarding Workprint Version] I aree with Bignole as well. I've seen this version and to me it is far better, and I believe it almost seems like it could be passed off or attempted to be passed off almost like an unrated version of the film. One of the main reasons is the big "rape" scene in the asylum. Anyway, a lot of people over at message board have also been discussing this issue as well. From what they have said, it was a Workprint of the film that was purposely leaked over the internet to get more attention on the film. Weather or not that is the case is yet to be determined. Perhaps we'll be able to see it when it hits the stores apparently on December 18th of this year. Until then, I do agree with Bignole on his statement above though. --Charles-Joseph 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast list[edit]

Is this really necessary? Anyone important is mentioned in the plot summary, and we have a link to IMDb if people want a full list. What's our reason for keeping it here? Paul730 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contemplated removing it. It's grown to basically look like an IMDb list. I think people just got mentioned because of the fact that they were in other Zombie movies, and not because they had significant roles. Plus, it appears to be just a breeding ground for lots of IU information; there doesn't appear to be any true casting info. I'd support its removal. The actors and characters are already mentioned in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I vote to remove it. These lists are kinda pointless; they don't tell us anything the plot summary can't. I mean, is listing the guy who played "security guard #3" or whatever really encyclopedic? Afterall, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If actual information on casting does crop up, I'd gladly have a "casting" section, but not as it currently stands. Paul730 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to remove a cast list if there's a link to IMDb and all cast members are mentioned in the plot just seems like a repetitive waste of space. Oh, and something else about the cast; I added a Calico Cooper reference to the DVD Release section. She was in a deleted scene that got cut.Long Away May (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot is way off.[edit]

The whole thing that Michael Myers, Laurie the knocking into the railing ending is way off (like person saying that the closest plant to earth is Pluto). Dr Loomis does not get kill. For any body who watch the movie knows that both Dr. Loomis and Laurie live and Michael get killed by police.

Someone is not getting there facts right. SO please grab the Rob Zombie's Halloween and watch the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin001001 (talkcontribs) 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok people, how about we act like law abiding citizens and actually watch a legal copy of the movie. Please read the discussions that take place above. What you saw was a workprint version of the movie, not a final cut. It was equivalent to a test screening, except someone stole it and leaked it on the internet. What is in this plot section is exactly what appeared in the theaters, I'd know because I paid to see it myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unrated DVD version[edit]

I just picked up my copy of the unrated version, and it came as a two-pack with another film called Partyline. I'm contemplating as to whether or not add this tidbit to the DVD section since there's no article on it here on Wiki, and there's nothing in the IMDB database. Has anyone even heard of this film?--The Scourge (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The film the article is about is the only film that gets free plot publishing, anything else really needs third-part sources covering the topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, wait. You sort of lost me here. Are you talking about Halloween, or Partyline? Because there isn't an article for Partyline, from what I can tell.--The Scourge (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, which means that it probably is nothing more than a short for the DVD. I would try and find a third-party source describing it. It doesn't really seem all that noteworthy. It's like saying "there are behind the scenes documentaries", which aren't that relevant to the article itself, unless there was some context behind it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. I figured it had some credibility since it was rated R. Plus, it seems a little too long for a short film (91 Mins.). It's probably just me.--The Scourge (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It could be an interesting addition, if someone writes about it. I mean, you could end up with a mini-film article in this article. I just don't think simply stating what the plot of the film is does for this article, since apparently no one has heard of the film--short of it being released with this unrated movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the extra DVD that comes with the Unrated Director's Cut varies as I got Pulse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halloween (2007 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:In the Plot, "during sex, Michael murders Paul and attacks", attacks who? You need to be clear. In the Development section, there's no need repetition of "Rob Zombie", mentioning it once makes it clear who you're talking about. Same section, this sentence ---> "On December 22, 2006, Malcolm McDowell was announced to be playing Dr. Loomis", is it missing a complete sentence?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)|In the Plot, "during sex, Michael murders Paul and attacks", attacks who? You need to be clear. In the Development section, there's no need repetition of "Rob Zombie", mentioning it once makes it clear who you're talking about. Same section, this sentence ---> "On December 22, 2006, Malcolm McDowell was announced to be playing Dr. Loomis", is it missing a complete sentence?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:Dates need to be unlinked, per here. According to this every film article should have a cast section, so I suggest one is added to the article. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since its a website and per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)|Dates need to be unlinked, per here. According to this every film article should have a cast section, so I suggest one is added to the article. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since its a website and per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:Reference 10 and 47 are missing Publisher info. According to this, there are two dead links.
    Half-check. Reference 16 has a red link and Reference 45 is dead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    The seem to be fine to me, plus the link checker tool doesn't note them either. (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)|Reference 10 and 47 are missing Publisher info. According to this, there are two dead links.
    Half-check. Reference 16 has a red link and Reference 45 is dead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    The seem to be fine to me, plus the link checker tool doesn't note them either. (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:Not very good, per the article's history page.|Not very good, per the article's history page.|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:Image:Halloweentrio.jpg has a weak FUR.|Image:Halloweentrio.jpg has a weak FUR.|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

1b) Prose can be cleaned up, I'll let you know when I do that. You are misreading the FILM MOS guideline with regard to cast listing. It says, "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." The key word is "may be". A simple list of the cast, which is not only provided in the plot section, but also in IMDb, is unnecessary. There was not a lot of casting information out there for the actors (which is typical of a horror film that isn't historical, ala it isn't the original Halloween). So, no, a cast list is NOT mandatory.
Well, just seeing from other film articles having cast sections, I figured that maybe it'd be useful to add one. I guess that doesn't work in this case. So, check for the no usage of the cast section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and get to those dead links after my class tonight. What edit war are you referring to per the article's history? We've had quite a few reverts to things to the article in the past couple months, but I'm not aware of any actual "edit war" going on. Please explain your reasoning.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the image of the trio go. It doesn't add anything to the section. It's just an image of Zombie, Faerch and Mane (in make-up), which should really be supported by critical commentary if it is needed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The choice is yours if you want the image to be gone. I can't make that decision, since I'm not a main editor for in this article. What I'm referring to the article being stable is that there's a whole lot of reverting vandalism and stuff, I'm not necessarily referring to "edit wars", that's just how the GA template is set-up. Also, take your time with the article, there's no rush for you to get the comments I left at the review. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a passer-by to this article because I've just watched the film for the first time. I've made a few small tweaks to the article in response to the GA review, in an attempt to help out. Like Bignole, I'm not a fan of cast lists. However, perhaps a section about the main characters and cast in prose form would be useful, in the style indicated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information? The two sentences in the 'Development' section about McDowell could be moved to such a section, and you might also be able to get similar information about the casing of the others? The JPStalk to me 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've created a casting section, tell me what you think.--Music26/11 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a start! (Remember that I'm not the GA reviewer, so my comments are independent of that.) It's a little short, though, and if it stays like it is, I'd probably lose the subheading. Do you think you'd be able to expand upon it? Halloween_(1978_film)#Casting is pretty good, and it's probably a good idea to replicate that article's structure for series continuity. The JPStalk to me 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I think all of the above statements have been answered, maybe the Casting section requires a bit expansion, but it's not neccessary.--Music26/11 10:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Okay, this just popped up onto It says there will be a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween, so maybe we should put some info in the page about this. (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hearsay, they are reporting on what other people are saying, which is itself based on a scooper that "talked" to Akkad. Let's wait for official announcements. Even when that does occur, that information will be best placed on the franchise article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Akkads' saying that the film is going from direct to dvd to theaters. It's on Google news. It's on a few more websites now.--VampireKen (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also been officially announced. It was announced at the 30 years of terror convention.--VampireKen (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


When Michael Myers escapes, what happens to the girl that the two security guards were raping in his room? Is she killed too or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Michael killed her. The only reason why he killed the two guards was because they were trying on his masks. But the film doesn't show what happens to her.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween sequel Article[edit]

Someone tried to make a sequel article a few weeks ago. The never started article was removed however It is time to start one. A poster for the film has been released. I'm not promoting anything just mentioning it. It's on all the Halloween myspace sites and Rob Zombie's also. Here are the links. These although they are myspace profiles are confirmations that there is a sequel being made for sure. Rob Zombie is making this film also. Rob Zombie's: [1] and Halloween Movies's: [2]. This is enough to start a article. Since production has begun it is definitely being made.--VampireKen (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, you seem to have found out already. How do you people get this info so fast? I guess I don't look at Zombie's myspace posts--VampireKen (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFF. We only create articles for future films when they are released, or their production itself has become notable. Since the sequel has yet to actually enter production (i.e. it's not notable, there is no need for a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I just got the myspace update from Rob Zombie's myspace blog. (the real one). Just checking to see if it was on here yet. So when does an article on it start up? When the production photos are released or trailer or closer to when the film is actually coming out? I'm not making it, I'm just wondering--VampireKen (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Either when the film is released, or when we have enough production information to warrant separating it from the franchise article. In other words, we we have far more than that little paragraph we have now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
We have lots of information (see "'Halloween' Sequel Gets Official Release Date," "Danielle Harris in Talks to Return in 'H2'," "Spoiler-filled Casting Breakdown For 'H2'," etc. from which to build an article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All one-line blurbs that do not constitute "notable production", especially since production has not even started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New movie same series[edit]

I have just reverted an edit that someone made to the article. The edit was removing preceded from the info box. They said it was a new series. It is but this is part of the halloween series in general. I have to go, could someone explain this. So if others try it they don't get confused.--VampireKen (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A way to explain it is like this. The original story line is finished. but Halloween and H2 (what it's being called now or a working title) though remakes are still part of the Halloween films. There is talk of a trilogy but that is just rumor and if true it would be a few years until a third film is released. Then there could be talks of separating it into two series. That's not a proposal by the way to anyone that reads this. An easier way to say it is like how Halloween 1, 2, 7, 8 are one series of films. 4, 5, 6 are another storyline. and 3 is a stand alone film. but I heard that a remake of it was released a few years ago under a new title. That's not important though now. Not based on any facts, the trilogy (if made) will mix all the story lines into three films. Or Laurie will become the killer. Now it sounds like a forum. but it's all one big series unless it is declared separate.--VampireKen (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There actually is no need for this section on the talk page. I'm fairly sure it's been covered somewhere. But overall, the best way to put it is that it's all the same "series", even though it's not the same "canon". --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Example why sequel stays off page and no article[edit]

Bignole and JpGrB are telling people over and over again NO MENTION OF SEQUEL IT'S NOT OUT YET! Well if it enters production hold off until it actually comes out. A very good example is Wes Craven's A Nightmare On Elm Street. During production the studio ran out of cash which delayed production for about a few weeks or a month. They might have been promoting the film the film almost got canceled. Although the film was released it almost never made it to theaters. Another example was the Halo movie (which an article was created for). Producers were confirmed actors were trying to get in. The studio was confirmed. Guess what? They could not make a movie because they could not make a story for the film. So the film got canceled. What if they can't decide how they want to continue the storyline in H2 and completely cancel the movie?(they'll find a way but what if?) The reason I'm writing this is to give examples of popular films that have gotten canceled. Listen to them. It could happen to H2.--VampireKen (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just when the film is released, it's when it's pre-production, or production itself, is notable. What is at the franchise article in the "future" section is all well and good, but not substantial enough to get it's own article, let alone be mentioned here. A remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is supposedly in the works too, but their "future" section is just fine for that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception section too long?[edit]

Does anyone else think so? Jabberwockgee (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least. It's summarzing opinions. Do you want to only include 4 people?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Death List[edit]

Need to make a whole page on all the characters that died in all the filmsBig Eazy 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonsOfAnarchy1982 (talkcontribs)

Death lists are unencyclopedic. That is why we don't put them in articles. They hold no actual value to the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to read or edit a Halloween death list, there's one at the Horror Movie Wiki. They're not suitable for this site because they are in-universe plot information with no real world context.  Paul  730 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the sequel[edit]

There was edit before that said the official title was H2: Halloween 2. Yes it was called that on ET but not in the trailer the trailer only calls it "H2". here's the trailer: --Darkness2light (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be what they are calling the film, so that should be what is listed here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cream of the Crop" or "Top Critic" Rotten Tomatoes score being used in reception section[edit]

I removed the score of the "Cream of the Crop" (now called "Top Critic") critics from the article due to a consensus by WikiProject Film members that it is generally not an appropriate score to use. 2 main issues are at hand:

1 - the sample size is too small to be useful when generalized and
2 - as per discussions here and here, the score of the "Top Critics" section is different in different regions of the world.

Picking a critic to be included in the "Top Critic" section is based on some set criteria but also allows for subjective input "as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff." Since European readers will always be directed to the UK version of Rotten Tomatoes website and Australian readers to the Australian website, the score of the Top Critic section could be much different on each website. Since this is an English encyclopedia and not an American encyclopedia, it would present too much of a US-centric point of view (even if this is an American film) to state that "the film was received thusly by top critics" all the while a UK-based reader might see a different number when clicking the reference link. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Information on deleted scenes?[edit]

In the version im currently watching two employees at the sanitarium in which Michael is being held, in a very graphic scene, rape a presumably insane young woman in front of Michael attempting to coerce him into joining in. They put on his mask while performing the rape which elicits a violent response from him and leads to his escape. Can someone enter information on this and other deleted scenes into the article? I think it is relevant (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You're watching the Director's Cut of the film, not the theatrical cut of the film. We don't typically just list the different scenes that appear in different versions, unless there is notability to it. As, a lot of the time, special editions and director's cuts do have different, extended, or sometimes fewer scenes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood fraud perpetuated, again[edit]

Wanna know why people are SO misinformed? Dr. Loomis buys a handgun in a retail store; film ignores 72-hour wait in 'real life' Illinois; Doctor carries concealed; 'Real life' Illinois does not allow open OR concealed carry (though hopefully that may finally change soon) see

While 'artists' claim 'artistic license' and that 'this is only a movie', folk's perception is affected by these false portrayals. Just like 'Hollywood guns' that never require reloading. Nearly EVERY film is propaganda for the gun-control crowd. And, MOST hypocritically, most of the 'big stars' that profit from using guns and violence in their films are rabid pro-control freaks in 'real life'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The film also shows lots of people being killed, ogling scantily clad women while unaware they are being spied on, stalking, rape, victimization of the main character as a child... all of which are presumably not allowed in Illinois too. Are you just trolling, or are you GENUINELY OK with dramatizations of these but wish for greater realism on gun issues in film? MrZoolook (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Jake Evans murders[edit]

I just read about this case where a teen named Jake Evans killed some of his family after being "inspired" by the way Michael killed his sister with ease. I think this would be an interesting fact to add somewhere in the article. Sources - --Matt723star (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that it's all that relevant. It certainly isn't a high profile case, and there isn't a string of murders committed because of the film. It seem slike undue weight being placed on a single incident.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, I think it's entirely relevant to the page, because his murders were committed due to an obsession with the movie (or the scene itself), and he's confessed that it influenced him. This is sort of like the murder that happened when The original Halloween II was released, and it's mentioned on that page as well. --Matt723star (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually there is a big difference. In the original case, it was the lawyer who charged the film caused hallucinations in his client, and it sparked a lot of discussion regarding media violence influencing kids. In this case, we have a kid "claiming" that the film influenced him. There is nothing else there. It received no other publicity. If we documented every time a criminal "claimed" to be influenced by some book or film or TV show then we'd have a whole page devoted to any one film. Please read about undue weight, as well as about "other pages".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Halloween (2007 film). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween (2007 film). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)