User talk:Bignole/Archive/2009/August

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nightmare in another language

he:(סיוט ברחוב אלם (סדרת סרטים Is it just me or is everything reversed? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Per: A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), some of the languages billed there just lead to the original film, is it supposed to be sort of a "close enough" kind of thing? • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to do some international edits. Also, the language: The edit links appeared to be on the different side, as well as the TOC and upper tabs, I just think it's funny they change the layout • S • C • A • R • C • E • 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Harper’s Island

Hi! There is an issue at the Harper’s Island article regarding the addition of a list of every actor to the infobox. Rather than pare the list down to only the main stars, I made an effort to have the list be collapsible within the infobox using Template:Collapse top/Collapse bottom, which would not substantially alter the work of the editor (talk) who had entered the overly long list. That editor reverted my effort with neither an edit summary nor opening a discussion on the article’s Talk page. I undid his reversion and then placed a note on his/her Talk page reminding him/her to use edit summaries. I also explained to him/her what I had been attempting to achieve with Template:Collapse top/Collapse bottom inside the infobox: to present his edit in a more compact, more efficient, manner and prevent his list from being whittled down. I also suggested that s/he might want to give Template:Collapsible list a try since it might work better than Template:Collapse top/Collapse bottom.

Since that time, an anonymous user (talk), that you have dealt with in the past, merely reverted my undoing of Jwept’s edit, again with neither an edit summary nor a discussion on the article’s Talk page. At this point, I undid that anonymous user’s edit (my second, so I am still safe vis-à-vis WP:3RR!) with an appropriate edit summary appended to the undo. Plus, I began a discussion on the article’s Talk page calling for a consensus on the matter. I also placed a note on that anonymous user’s Talk page reminding him/her to use edit summaries and to seek their participation in the consensus discussion on the article’s Talk page. Finally, I went back to the original editor’s talk page and placed an update also inviting him/her to participate in the consensus discussion.

Since you have dealt with this issue in other television show wikiarticles, any further suggestions? Care to participate in the consensus discussion. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE1: I think that this issue may be resolved quickly. Another, very creative editor made three brilliant suggestions on how to deal with this issue. I hope that one of them can achieve consensus. I am partial to his/her Option A. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE2: Thanks for your input! The page has been altered to reflect your suggestion and WP:MOSTV. — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Could you weigh in on the use of images of cast members on the Family Guy article. I started a discussion here. BOVINEBOY2008 00:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jason/demon

I think it's a fair description, taking JGtH into account. Plus FvJvA presents the theory that he's basically just a special kind of deadite raised by the Necronomicon. The article prose even describes him having a "demon-infested heart".  Paul  730 01:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no more one-shot than being a cyborg. It's not made explicit in FvJvA, just Ash's knee-jerk assumption based on what little he knows of Jason ("Undead kid comes back to off slacker camp punks. That's got deadite written all over it, baby.") Still, I think JgtH is enough to justify the category.  Paul  730 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I found a copy of the second issue of Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash 2: Nightmare Warriors yesterday (couldn't find #1 because my comic shop sucks). Anyway, the series looks pretty fun. The writing is a little shaky but I'm only really in it for the fanservice so who cares. The Nightmare Warriors line up seems to be: Ash, Tommy, Maggie & Neil (who are a couple!), Tina, Rennie, Alice & Jacob, Steven & Stephanie. It's really cool having all these characters interacting, and one of them dies pretty brutally, which was a shock. The final page is of a mysterious soldier man saving all their asses, and then ripping off his mask to say, "I'm Tommy Jarvis and I'm here to kill Jason Voorhees!" Fun, fun, fun. :D The remake finally came out on DVD over here, so I'm in Friday heaven right now.  Paul  730 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

God knows when the second series will be available in TPB, or if my comic shop will even bother ordering it. I finally got my hands on the Halloween: Nightdance TPB. There was a brilliant back-up story about Charlie Bowles which I hadn't read yet. Explains quite a lot about Michael's powers, but in a vague enough way that it doesn't feel like Thorn all over again. Charlie kind of taps into evil itself, and begins having visions of a girl (Judith Myers) being killed over and over again through time. It's very interesting. I'm not going to stop hounding you until you read that book. :P

I picked up the "Extended Cut", which seems to be the only version released over here. I haven't watched it yet, sometime tonight probably. Btw, how cool is the Nightmare remake sounding? I'm getting quite excited for that. Part of me wishes those guys had handled the Halloween remake, because I've liked what they've done with all the other remakes.  Paul  730 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to shop online but I don't have a credit card or access to one. As soon as you read Nightdance, I expect a full-length gushing comment telling me how right I was. :P It's literally the best Halloween since the original, I'm totally in love with it. Good luck with your job hunt. What made you choose Michigan?

Well, that's not true. I would argue that Nightmare is more than just entertainment, it has depth and artistic value to it while still appealing to the Friday audience. I was watching "Restless" one day and realised how much potential the Nightmares could have if they bothered to develop their characters beyond one-note cliches (there's a character in the remake who's on the swim team, who wants to bet he's going to drown?). I enjoyed both Texas and obviously Friday, but I've still to see Ammityville. It's kinda sad how out of all the main horror remakes, Halloween is probably the weakest.  Paul  730 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My bank card doesn't say "visa" so I don't know if it'll work. I'll look into it, I hope so.

Yeah, obviously the sequels sucked (although 3 had a stronger concept, using your dreams to your advantage, it wasn't fully exploited IMO) but Nightmare as a concept was more artistic than just Jason cutting people up. Sometimes that worked to it's disadvantage; because your expectations are lower, the Friday movies disappoint much less than Nightmare or Halloween. I hope the remake is ambitious enough to explore it's potential. Perhaps the character won't drown and I'll be proved wrong. It just seemed like most Nightmare characters are introduced with a single personality trait that will be used against them. Character likes TV? Gets killed by a TV. Character likes comics? Gets turned into a comic. Character is deaf? Gets killed by his hearing device. It's kind of sad because they could be exploring much deeper themes in a more abstract way.

Yeah, we've argued about RZH so many times and I've admitted that it has many positive things about it, but it's still a difficult film for me to truly like. Honestly, once you've read Nightdance, you get a much better sense of what Michael Myers stands for and RZH just doesn't cut it in comparison. Nightdance is far scarier too, that story left me genuinely disturbed, which isn't easy.  Paul  730 21:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, the original F13 is my least favourite. I mean, I like it but the others are just cooler. Truth be told, there isn't a single Friday I don't like, I wouldn't change much in that series given the choice. Parts 4, 6, and the remake are the best ones though, no question. My biggest concern with the Nightmare remake is Nancy, she's the star of that franchise for me so if they fuck her up I'm going to be upset. The new Freddy sounds amazing though. No more crappy one liners!!! :D

I've watched the Halloween films way more than the others because I got into them at a younger, less critical age. I've seen 4 and 5 countless times, I know them off by heart and they have sentimental value despite their flaws. There's a reason Jamie Lloyd is a cult legend. I watch H20 and II more nowadays, as they're my current favourite sequels. I watch 6 for Tommy and little else. Resurrection is surprisingly watchable even though I hate it. That's the Halloween I watch if I can't be bothered paying attention. I prefer "vintage Friday" but sometimes I crave the wackier later entries. I almost never watch the Nightmare movies... I've only seen the sequels maybe twice each. I've made a vow never to watch Freddy's Dead again, it incites suicidal emotions.  Paul  730 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I like Manhattan. It's kind of the last "classic" Friday and Jason looks great in it. The only one I kind of don't like is Jason Goes to Hell but even that is okay. I think it could've been better though, I wish they'd explored the Voorhees family more, with flashbacks to Pamela and Elias, young Jason, etc. I'm interested in that time period, but there's no definitive canon version (I loved the drowning flashbacks in FvJ). I have no hard feelings toward A New Beginning whatsoever, it's a perfectly good entry.

I was always a Halloween fanboy, and I loved the original Nightmare on the side. I didn't see the Fridays until I was older (they weren't available on DVD for so long), so they didn't have quite the same impact. I wasn't that impressed with the Friday movies at first, they just seemed like crap Halloween wannabes, but they grew on me. The overall series is greater than the sum of it's parts. I hated Jason until I saw FvJ, and began to understand what made him tick. I like the Nightmare movies but I don't think they're all that watchable. There's so much exposition, and with the characters all struggling to stay awake, they can feel quite wearing.  Paul  730 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think any of the Fridays have been as creative or risky as those in the other series. Halloween III and New Nightmare mean anything? If anything, Friday is the most complacent of the three, which also makes it the most consistant.

I just watched the extended remake tonight. Didn't notice a whole lot of difference to be honest. I picked up on the machete-sharpening scene because you mentioned it, but apart from that...? I'm kind glad, the extended cut of RZH was really flabby and overlong.  Paul  730 23:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of Carpenter's agenda, dropping an established character and storyline from the series was risky and creative. Even though I personally don't like Halloween III, even I admit it's one of the better entries in the series, possibly the second best. It's original, unlike the Myers sequels or any of the Fridays. You can't really credit Friday with the anthology idea because they pussied out of doing it, the same way Halloween pussied out of having Jamie Lloyd replace Michael as the killer (that would've been fucking awesome). If you're going to give credit for unused ideas, remember that "the dreaded space film" was actually Carpenter's idea for Michael Myers. You're criticising Halloween for not killing Michael off? They still developed him by introducing the Thorn concept. That was more creative that making Jason a zombie; it was an attempt to build a mythology for the character and actually develop the story. Jason being a zombie doesn't really change the story all that much, it just means he can take more damage. Even though Thorn didn't really work, I still respect it as an interesting direction. I think Halloween is far more risky, it's just unfortunare that most of their risks didn't pay off. The most successful risk was probably the H20 retcon, even though the fanboys will never forgive them for it.

Ah, I didn't remember Whitney escaping in the theatrical version. It's hard to remember the exact details of a film you saw once months ago. I started watching the deleted scenes but got tired so switched it off. Are they worth watching? I hate "extended" scenes, you have to sit through loads of crap you just watched to see 2 extra seconds.  Paul  730 15:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you did say it was the franchise they took risks with, not the character. I would agree that Jason was altered more across the series than Michael was. But that just goes back to what we were originally saying about Michael and Freddy being perfect in their first appearance, whereas Jason was more of a work-in-progress. They could afford to take risks with him.

To be honest, I made the kerosine/power link without it being spelled out so another scene probably wasn't necessary. I assumed Sheriff Karl-from-Desperate Housewives showed up because he thought Clay was making hoax calls, I'm guessing that was the gist of that deleted scene? How very Part VI.

Btw, have you heard (maybe it's in the article already and I never noticed) that the new Freddy Krueger is going to be Scottish? I read it in the paper this morning. That could be kinda cool, although my first thought was Groundskeeper Willie.  Paul  730 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, what do you think was added to Michael and Freddy to make them 100%? I'm generally a zombie Jason fan, but when I was watching the remake, I thought about how much scarier he is when he's realistic. I have to say, I love how he's portrayed in that movie, it's probably the best Jason overall.

That sounds like a nice scene for the Sheriff, I wish they'd included that. I would've made his death mean a little more if we saw what a good cop he was. Yeah, I'm a little leery of Scottish Freddy as well. It could go very wrong, especially if they go down the OTT stereotype route.  Paul  730 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually hate "funny Freddy" so I'm glad that aspect of him is being purged in the new film. In the first film he was a cruel prankster (cutting off his own fingers, wearing Tina's face) but he didn't spew out the crappy one-liners. Yeah, I agree that Zombie nailed Michael visually (at least in his first film). Even though I'm not keen on the long hair, the actual "Shape" costume was perfect. Still haven't made up my mind about his new look, but I do like the Grim Reaper imagery with the hood. Urgh, Michael doesn't "seek out family and kill them", that's a gross over-simplification established by the sequels. He's attracted to girls who remind him of Judith and his actions are all about reliving that thrill. He does a lot more than kill them as well, he plays with them before he kills them and then makes art with their corpses. Michael's an extremely complicated villain who became one-dimensional in the sequels.

You should remember that I read this in a Scottish newspaper, so it's possible it's just a bullshit rumour. The fact that you've not heard anything official is suspect.  Paul  730 04:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The whole Judith thing was the point of the original film, that's what the comics were working off. The films were never originally about a biological connection, Michael just latched onto Laurie and her friends because they reminded him of Judith. It definitely wasn't JC's intention for Laurie to be his literal sister, he openly admits that was a shoddy retcon because he couldn't think of any other ideas. He's ashamed of it. And it wasn't just Laurie; Michael places Judith's headstone over Annie's body, and there are parallels between the way he watches Lynda/Bob and Judith/Daniel while they're having sex. Then there's the question of, why would Michael stalk and play with Annie and Lynda if he's only after blood relatives? He spends so much time on them, if he's only killing them to hurt Laurie he could've done it faster. He's clearly enjoying himself. Michael fixated on Laurie more than the others because she's like him, repressed and watchful. There was a subtextual connection between them, but not a blood link. You just proved my point; Michael was complicated in the original film but the sequels simplified him. It wasn't a case of "revealing the motive" so much as "inventing crappy retcons to explain something that should've stayed mysterious".  Paul  730 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the comics that make that intepretation; Daniel Farrands has made the same observation in an interview taken before the DDP comics were even written. It's called subtext, and it exists in the original film in tons. Just because the film doesn't explicitly say "this is why he does what he does" in the same crude way that RZH does, doesn't mean it's not there. I can't believe you actually accuse Halloween - near universally considered a flawless masterpiece - of "shitty storytelling", while praising the awkward remake for it's clichéd child abuse psychology.

He stalked Annie and Lynda as well, we just saw more of him stalking Laurie because we were seeing the film through Laurie's eyes. Also, Laurie was the only one who noticed him; Annie and Lynda were oblivious. I'm not saying Laurie wasn't his main target, but you can't dismiss his interest in the other girls. He knocks over a flower pot just to frighten Annie, locks her in the laundry room, and locks her car just to mess with her. He dressed as a ghost for Lynda. Why would he go to all this trouble if all he cares about is killing his family? He's getting off on it, he's enjoying playing games with them and frightening them to see how they react. That's more depth than he was ever allotted in any of the sequels, where he just sliced through supporting characters to get to Laurie/Jamie. The closest the sequels came to recreating that was in H20 when he stalked John's friends and strung Sarah up for them to find, when he could've went straight for Laurie.

Michael Myers is the bogeyman. He's not a human being, he's not meant to be understood. He's an abstract figure who represents fear and evil, and his actions are supposed to be bizarre and mysterious, that's what makes him frightening. If you pin down everything he does and explain it in human terms then he stops being the bogyeman and becomes irrelevant. You consider the lack of explanation to be lazy writing, I consider it a vital part of the character's mystique. If his complexity is just an illusion, then it's a very effective one. Also, in the first movie, so much of Michael's character exists in the music and lightning. You hardly see him onscreen, but it feels like he's in every shot because the shadows and the creepy music represent him. That's why the sequels are less successful at bringing the character to life; they just have a stuntman in a mask walking around. It's not what Michael does onscreen that makes him scary, it's what he might be doing offscreen, it's all in the imagination.  Paul  730 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

Okay, maybe it's not "univerally" acclaimed but pretty widely. It is respected as a piece of cinematic art, not just a Friday-style slasher, that's my point.

Perhaps those are my interpretations but that doesn't make them invalid; again, not everything needs to be explicit, the audience can figure things out on their own. Some people think Michael knocked the flower pot over by accident, fair enough. I think, based on how he allows himself to be seen by Laurie to deliberately try and scare her and the way he messes with Lynda in the sheet, that he knocked it over on purpose to frighten Annie. Same with the laundry room and the car door. As for why he doesn't kill them the same way he killed Judith; my interpretation is that he's experimenting. It wasn't the specific cause of death he's looking to relive, but the thrill of the moment, so he's trying different things.

The reliving-Judith's-murder thing isn't really an explanation though, just a pattern of behaviour. It's still mysterious, because you're left with why does he want to relive that? Why did he do it in the first place? We can observe his M.O. without fully understanding his motive. For example, we know he's obsessed with Halloween but we don't know why. H6 went down the Thorn/druid route, which I think went too far in explaining things (the nonsense about the stars aligning). However, I do like the scene in HII where he writes "Samhain" on the blackboard; it provides just enough of a glimpse into his psyche without demystifying things.

Sorry if I'm getting too heated. You know how passionate I can be about these things, there was no anger/malice intended. :)  Paul  730 21:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and pull the crazy back a few notches. :P  Paul  730 21:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just watched Jason Goes to Hell (FvJvA put me in the mood for it) and there's a very strange scene where Jason ties one of his victims down and shaves him. What the hell was that about, since when is Jason concerned with personal grooming? Thought you might have a theory since you're the Jason expert. I enjoyed the movie though, it seems to get better every time I watch it.  Paul  730 00:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty kinky of Jason; instead of just possessing the guy, he takes him home, ties him up and shaves him. I don't even remember that scene, I must have blocked it out. Yeah, I thought it was strange when Randy/Jason spoke near the end. I guess that might be the first time Jason's spoken onscreen. What other problems were there? I wondered how Duke knew so much about Jason's body hopping when he's never done that before. The only comments I've seen from the filmmakers was an interview with the writer, where he basically admits that the film was a bizarre mess, and he doesn't know what he was thinking.  Paul  730 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, in Jasons defense, the concept of a body-hopping monster that burns out it's hosts is common in sci-fi and fantasy. The writer has admitted to ripping off The Hidden though, so you're not wrong. As for those bloopers, most of them just seem to be the standard continuity errors you see in all movies (people's clothes changing between scenes, etc) rather than major story problems.  Paul  730 13:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion requested :)

Hi Bignole! I was wondering -- I know you don't watch the show -- if you would care to weigh in with your opinion on a peaceful discussion I'm having on my talk page with a user who has some ideas for edits to Ianto Jones#Fan reaction. I'm partially worried that if I'm the only person quoting policy / prose concerns it will seem I've become an article-Nazi. The original debate on the article (Talk:Ianto Jones#Recent edits and Talk:Ianto Jones#SaveIantoJones.com) dealt with an accusation that a section of the Reception was unduly biased against fans, however Paul and I were essentially able to prove that this was not the case. The editor I'm currently discussing the matter with, Charsea (talk · contribs), is hoping to re-structure the section to separately and more positively portray the saveiantojones.com website apart from the larger fan movement. I am thinking your understanding of reliable sources, appropriate weight/attention, real-world information and perspectives would be useful to bring in. If it's a lot to read up on or you're busy, I won't be offended if you decline. I came to because of your objectivity; Paul and I are both sort-of-fans of the show, editors of the article and have both been significantly involved in the discussion already.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll implement those changes. Yes, I also wanted you to look at Charsea's proposed edits (which are visible on Talk:Charsea), and the proposal to separately discuss the organised fan reaction as a separate entity from the fans at large and the criticism towards them.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Uberjason.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Uberjason.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

House infobox

Could I get you to weigh in on this discussion? Some editors are wanting to use a "current cast" in the starring parameter of the infobox in the [[House (TV series) article. The discussion is here. Anything you could add would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Are you too busy or can you take a look at Watchmen (film)? The GA review asks for a copyedit on tense use problems. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article passed! I had to split the development into a separate article, and that one could even be a GA - it just needs a better lead. Can you take a look and fix the intro? (it won't certainly not spoil you...) igordebraga ≠ 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Season 9 (Smallville)

On TV.com, at least 6 episodes are listed. I am not sure if you use TV.com as a reliable source, but I have been using it for a few shows and it has not been wrong once since. Anyway, we can check our episode names with other sites, fan sites or not. We know for certain that the next episode is Savior, why not create a Season 9 page?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Family Guy

I asked Collectonian for her help, but would appreciate as much as I can get. Do you have a chance to look at Family Guy? I have been working really hard at doing a general clean to it. It still needs some expansion on casting and positive reception, but any suggestions you would have or articles/sources you would recommend would be really helpful. I am taking a step back from the article for a while, so no rush. Thanks! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy

Can you see family guy and tell me what can i do to improve it, thanks. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there are inof references on FG. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while (did u like H2?)

I haven't talked to you since the first pics from tthe set popped up from Halloween 2. So did you see it yet? I did, it was great.--Darkness2light (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The ending. I believe it's best if they leave it their and leave it up to the audience to decide what happens after. But if they do decide to make aa third one (which if they do it should go straight-to-DVD to be safe) they will have to make an entirley new sstoryline. This was the only Halloween film which makes you care for a victim but really want Loomis to not survive. But anyway Zombie did a good job. I expected it to be a horrible movie but I was wrong. I agree with you on the Michael stabbing a victim to much. What got me though was there was one scene which they clearly show his face without the mask on. Although it's darkened you can see it. That kinda gave a scary turn to the character.--Darkness2light (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at some of the character articles. Thee Laurie Strode one has a c. and died info in the infobox. Considering she is alive again should I remove that? Also if not should I add them to the other characters (I was debating about Michael since he was "killed" in the remake and now he's been killed again) and Loomis got his head crushed in the last one but is in the new one. Should I remove/add or just leave it?--Darkness2light (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam Loomis article

Hey, someone keeps putting the name of the new film as "H2" and when I change it the person puts it back as "H2". I said it was only a promotional title but they didn't listen. What should I do?--Darkness2light (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this; should it not be Sam Loomis (Halloween)? How often is he called Samuel?  Paul  730 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/halloween-3d-planned-for-2010?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=news they aleready added it to the article...--Darkness2light (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm questioning this. Never has a Halloween sequel been announced only a few days after another's relase. Also Halloween movies has said nothing about a third installment.--Darkness2light (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this just remain on the franchise article and not be removed if it's there?--Darkness2light (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it's possible. Tyler Mane signed on to make three "Halloween" movies. I remember reading it on a Halloween forum. but it also said alot of actors sign on for sequels even if there will never be one. Guess we will just have to wait. --Darkness2light (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's official: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=126058318&blogID=508119991 --Darkness2light (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

TV actor navbox related

Just wondering, but do you have an easy reference for the "actors only" navboxes deletions?

The reason I'm asking is there is a pair, {{Batman actors}} and {{Superman actors}}, that seem to fi the criteria to bounce - only link is a single role but from multiple TV shows/films and both voice and live action.

And given the editor that created them, I'd like to have that standing consensus to point to...

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - J Greb (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)