User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 13

Re: Incredible Hulk change

Well, I wouldn't change it to just mess with it. I believe it was from the creators they said it was attached loosely to the story 'Hulk'. But I remember that from, I think, even before I saw the film, so I wouldn't remember the source exactly anymore. Sorry...

So I added the word 'loosely' because that is exactly what they said. However, I think for marketing-reasons considering the popularity of 'Hulk' they wanted to silence that later. But if you look at, for example, the ending of 'Hulk', Bruce Banner ended up in some kind of South American tropic jungle. Well, guess where he starts out to be in 'The Incredible Hulk'. It's the same or some similar country. Hence it not being officially a sequel, as in "Hulk 2", they did reboot it and change the story, but still being loosely attached to 'Hulk's story. It was originally more tied-in with 'Hulk', but apparently Edward Norton cut it down to only this much attachment.

That's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamageIncM (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon

Hi Alientraveller. Yes I did switch to Bonaparte crossing the alps instead of Napoleon crossing the alps partly for realism, in the sense that the next image is already an imperial [propaganda] one of him sitting on the throne. i thought it would be better not to have two 'imperial' images in a row. more importantly for me, i like the warmer colours in the bonaparte image and yes it is more realistic. on the helena image, i haven't seen it before and if it was removed from the article, i'm very sure this was done before I started editing the article. i like it, especially the droopy french flag and the dampness mirroring Nap's fortunes; as you say it does bring history to life. article has quite a lot of images already but we maybe able to switch it or squeeze in at some point. i would add it to commons and Napoleon's category if it's not already. any suggestions for improving article would be gratefully received, i'm also thinking about getting it to FA, Tom B (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agee that the image is pretty spectacular but when you shrink it down to go into an article it's very dark and that was why I swapped it for the other ship one. On the tomb image, i put that in recently after a peer reviewer recommended it was pretty key to have a picture of this very famous tomb. I might also use it to replace the murkier version in les invalides article. You're right that the groggy Naploeon should be transferred to commons. Tom B (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks okay as it is, what have you got your default image preferences set as? I've recently changed mine down to 180px which is what people who haven't logged in, i.e. most people see. It makes images look a bit small for my liking, do you know if there's been a recent discussion about default image size? I think system admins set the default according to current technology. Tom B (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Changeling

Ha, no, not yet. It'll be a while, even if I have to wait for one of the Academy screener DVDs to turn up. I do however have the screenplay sat in front of me. I know what's on the page might not necessarily make it to screen, so I don't intend to incorporate this into the article until someone else does a plot summary that I can work this around. Steve ^{T • C} 21:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, go to the IMDb messageboard for almost any high-ish profile unreleased film and it's almost a given that someone there will be offering the script for said film, usually in exchange for one they don't have. But once it's out there you'll likely find some kind soul willing to give it up for free. Otherwise, there's always The Internet Movie Script Database. In Changeling's case, however, the screenplay was legally downloaded from Universal's Oscar Site, which also includes those for Frost/Nixon and The Tale of Despereaux. Probably to encourage voting in the Best Screenplay category. Other studios will probably do the same thing closer to Oscar time. Steve ^{T • C} 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Man

See Pirates of the Caribbean film series...POTC 4 doesnt come out until 2011 and on there it lists 2003- present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonglass (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future

You might want to do another polish because I'm getting closer and closer to WP:GAN. Wildroot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the edit about there being no "To Be Continued" caption, which you reverted. I recently saw an original film print of the movie, and there was no caption. Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.107.139 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stuff

1. Seeing that there's a category and a pretty active 007 community that will probably advocate soundtrack articles, it may be necessary to have redundant content between the film article and the soundtrack article. I'm not much of a fan of track listings if there are not many songs or musical artists that can be linked for navigation. If it was a non-franchise article, I'd be bold in merging it, but there may be resistance here.
2. Yeah, I would remove the Watchmen rating bit... I saw it earlier but couldn't find anything in the article about it. I mean, if it was a mainstream superhero film like Batman or Superman that got an R, that would be worth saying (with citation). But saying "Non-Vertigo", come on... it's really splitting hairs there. I'm sure that there will be some commentary down the road about the rating, anyway -- some heavy content in the film.
3. Wow, I didn't update myself on Tintin... being at the forefront of these upcoming films really makes us realize how iffy these projects can be, huh? I think Christmas would sound reasonable, but if someone else pushes for a merge earlier, maybe we can roll with that, too.
4. Hulk did smash! I really enjoyed the film; I never saw the TV series, but I could tell its "on the run" influence. The battle between Hulk and Abomination (or Blonsky, or "an abomination") was titanic. You could tell the others' fear when Hulk finally subdued the baddie. I was wondering a couple of things, though... didn't the trailer show Bruce Banner talking to Doc Samson? What was said between them, and why wasn't it in the film? Also, why did Tony Stark approach the General about the team? Hulk is still on the run, I assume, and I wasn't clear on what use the General had. I really do wish they did a Captain America film already! If it was released by now, it would be a really timely film for the United States. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked the film a lot; definitely touched on the old ones a lot! Enjoyed a lot of the dialogue. I think that the plot was a little over the top, and I'm not sure if genuine awe was really expressed by anyone about the truth. "Nuking the fridge" wasn't that bad, but the car chase could have been cut down and the monkey scene avoided. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Campbell...Martin Campbell

I've seen Forster's stuff, but my point was that Campbell has proven himself to be a good Bond director. It's a different level of action movie and Forster really hasn't done action movies. Some people just cannot do certain types of films, and that is why I said that we'll just have to wait and see how he really does. My issue is more with the people holding the rights, because you have a director that has proven twice that he can re-energize your film series, yet they never bother to try and keep him around for more than one movie in a session.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just means Zorro isn't Campbell's thing. He clearly can handle Bond. The parkour chase at the beginning of CR was awesome. The torture scene; the fight in the stairwell. The action wasn't continuous, as you pointed out they were developing the character emotionally, but when it was there it was awesome. That huge sequence on the airport runway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that it doesn't look and feel too different, kind of like how the second and third Matrix movies looked and felt in comparison to the original.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IGN gave it a good overall score but their review seemed rather negative. But then, as I've said, IGN can be prone to fanboyism in their reviews so they're maybe not the most reliable opinion.  Paul  730 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good news and bad news (then bad news is more relevant to you). The good news, my class was canceled. The bad news, I forgot that I lent the DVD to my friend so I won't be able to grab that screen capture till probably Monday (at the earliest). I tried to do it at work, but their computers suck.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly good source; indeed, an excellent one to use IMO. If only every film had such an article written about its critical response, it'd make all our tasks a lot easier. Have you seen it yet? Steve ^{T • C} 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, for shame I'll have to wait for DVD (a trip to the cinema is out of the question as the g/f isn't keen on Bond films, despite my protestations that the new ones aren't anything like some of the Roger Moore... efforts). I didn't even see Casino Royale until earlier this year (pretty much loved it). Steve ^{T • C} 19:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think even the hardcore fans recognise Octopussy as a bit... weak, don't they? The last time I went to the cinema on my own was to see City Hall when I was 18 :) I'm happy to wait for DVD; it'll give me time to work on persuading her to try Casino Royale. I always manage to in the end. Incidentally, there seems to be an error with the Bond film infobox that displays {{{editing}}} if the field is missing, and an empty entry if the field is there but not filled. Steve ^{T • C} 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's actually any field that this happens with; I only noticed it when browsing another Bond article earlier. But I think I know how to fix it. I'll give it a shot. Steve ^{T • C} 21:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've recoded the infobox in my sandbox (learning on the fly!) to use the 'if' parameter so it doesn't happen. Take a look at User:Steve/QoS (film) and see if you think it looks OK. The only thing I'm not sure of is how to properly indent the composer and performer headings. Any idea? Steve ^{T • C} 21:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You say it's different from Casino Royale; do you think it's an appropiate follow-up or do the differences make it feel disjointed? Also, how is the characterization for Bond himself? The thing I loved most about Casino Royale was that James Bond felt like a real human being and not a carboard cutout. Does QoS continue that? I've read contradictory reviews, some say he's still very complex while others say he's mostly ignored for the action.  Paul  730 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The most common criticism I've heard is that it doesn't feel like a "Bond" film, it lacks the humour, etc. Since Craig's Bond isn't really James Bond yet (in the sense that CR was basically an origin story and QoS presumably continues that), would you like to see the Craig movies become more "Bondish" as they progress? Personally, I'm fine with the grittier tone... it seems closer to the original novels (even though I've never read them, CR seemed like what they would be like...) That said, I'd like to see the introduction of some more classic bond elements Q and Moneypenny, but without the sillier aspects of the films like invisible cars. :)  Paul  730 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

When you say "intertitle", do you mean the gunbarrel sequence or the actual opening credits with the silouettes and the film theme song? In your overall assessment, does it live up to Casino in terms of keeping the franchise fresh (i.e. Casino basically gave a dying franchise a new lease on life; did Quantum start killing it again?)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the "it's not fun anymore" critics but I do wonder if some of the classic humour could be incorporated without ruining the realistic tone. I'm also not opposed to Robin being in a Batman movie, as you say, it's how it's done that matters. Lol, I know what you mean about the violence. I was reading a review that complained Bond had been turned from family fun into gritty sadism. I thought "Didn't Bond crush a guy to death in Tomorrow Never Dies and then crack a joke"? Pretty sick family fun. :)  Paul  730 21:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Craig in Alice in Wonderland

I answered your question at the article's talk page. The interivew is from a site that accepts user generated content and contains a lot of factual errors meaning it's probably a fake. Of course if another source can be found, by all means re-add the information.

Aurum ore (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My Guestbook

Hey there! Fancy signing my Guestbook? I'll give you cookies. ;) -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 20:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point

Thanks for pointing out that the new Bond film Quantum of Solace is already in release in England. Assertions that the gun barrel was at the end of the film certainly don't abound on the web. And the same assertion is made also in the WP article on Quantum of Solace with a citation, but there the source cited doesn't back it up.

There have been lots of false rumors about many films in the past, especially in the Star Trek franchise, where allegations that something or another was going to happen to Spock, Kirk or whatever that turned out to be entirely groundless, that I don't think you can blame me for requiring a citation. (The record-holder for films with groundless rumors has to be Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut though.)

I trust the collective judgment of UK viewers and won't revert again.

Regards,

--WickerGuy (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Eyes Wide Shut might be that Kubrick reportedly would shoot the same scene like 20 times, so there were probably endless variations on the cutting room floor that might have fed the rumors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

Hey bud, Could you look into my talk page and answer his question. It is about Brendan Frazer and his role in GI Joe.--SkyWalker (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone on edit summaries

It would really help if you maintained a more open and helpful tone in your edit summaries. Summary statements such as "Oh, God, please!" and "What part of X did I not explain?" don't really encourage a friendly community of editors. The last edit to which you made this remark ("Crystal Skull" having received mixed reactions from long-time fans of the films) probably reflected the actual reception of the film. The problem was that the editor didn't cite and support the contention properly. Regardless of whether or no you agree with the substance of the edits, however, this page should maintain a tone that welcomes all editors willing to engage in the process and build the entry, not function as a territory best guarded by a tone that appears to frequently deride another's contributions. Finally, and aside from all that, the above type of edit summaries don't actually summarize your edits. Thanks. --Vaudedoc (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

Hey, hope you're doing well. I bet you already got to see this film since it was released earlier over there, I got to wait two more weeks! As a result, I didn't look to closely at the article (especially the plot section). I looked through all of his edits to the page, which took awhile since there are so many and they all lack edit summaries. I think the best option is to invite him to discuss the options on the talk page about any statements he included that were POV. It's good to see that he is helping with the copyediting, but after you have shown him on his talk page guideline/policy pages that he can go to that explain verifiability and using neutral point of view, he should have modified his edits to the page. I'd recommend a personal message to his talk page instead of the templates and see if he responds. If he continues to readd them without responding, then you probably should continue on in reporting him. Good work with the article so far, I've already reassessed it as B-class, and I'm sure it will have no problems advancing to higher classes in the future, once all the hype settles down. Let me know if you need anything else. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk (film)

You're one of the best editors I've seen, and your contribution to this article has been invaluable. You might want to join the current discussion at Talk:The Incredible Hulk (film) concerning the lead. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

Mr. Barack Obama. :) I really am thrilled! Now I hope we can do some good for this country. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. I just won't be back to work until tomorrow, so I won't be able to get my movie back until then (assuming that my friend has watched it and not been playing Fallout 3 for a week). I didn't vote for either of them. Apart from the fact that I despise the two party system, and find that both candidates are rather hypocritical and not actually represent a person I would want in office, I also didn't vote for them because I believe that the process (we vote and then the Electoral College decides based on our votes) is fundamentally flawed - unfairly forcing people's votes to carry far less weight because of the way the system operates. I actually meant to go vote for the amendment issues for my state, but I didn't get a chance to make it down to the polls (but, based on the percentages that I saw last night it wouldn't have made a difference, because the primary amendment that I was going to vote against ended up earning 63% approval...which shocked me, especially since Obama won the state).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The man is a walking contradiction. He wants to disarm all of our nuclear missles and stop all production on any line of country defense similar to them, and then ask Russia to follow suit. The problem is, that opens our country up to a multitude of foreign countries that despise us and would love to send their nukes over here knowing we have no retaliation. Then, he says he supports people's right to own guns and then suggests that he would be willing to have the abortion time frame extended into the third trimester (you're talking the last 3 months of pregnancy...that's a bit too late in the development phase of the unborn baby). Then, his government run health care is ridiculous. It starts out well, making it mandatory for all children...which children are in need of it, but he wants to eventually push for the "optional" plan for all families. The problem there is that even presenting families with an "option" of gov. run health care--he's using it as a means to force the private companies to reduce their prices--people are going to run to it--if given the option of paying private or having the gov. pick up the tab people will choose the latter--which is going to ruin the entire system. That's why it doesn't work in other countries. It doesn't work in Canada (even though people try and believe that it does). The only thing good about Canada's health care system is the cheap meds you can buy. Other than that, it actually doesn't work. That being said, I don't think we would be in any better shape with McCain, or his beluga whale, polar bear killing VP, Palin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in. I agree with you Bignole.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually talk about politics because it can be a volatile topic (especially on Wikipedia, though I was impressed to see the candidates' articles featured on the front page). Regarding the nukes, I have to disagree with your assessment about how it would unfold. The United States has a great deal of nukes, and we will probably be the last one or two nations in the world to decommission them if there is ever global proliferation. I have not heard anything about the third trimester claim, and I think that if it is even marginally true, he's not going to be able to make that kind of change. As for health care, the United States is pretty lowly ranked. I don't pretend to know how successful his plan could be, but a change is sorely needed. We already have a lot of guaranteed protections in place -- law enforcement, firefighting, court of law. It just seems like providing care for members of society is an extension of that. Beyond these issues, Obama is in a very good place right now to motivate people young and old. His message has been all-encompassing, and he's said that government can't fix everyone's problems. If he can encourage people to volunteer or start NGOs, that would be a great start. As for McCain... well, I think he ran a very poor campaign, so it is hard for me to really assess the kind of good he could have done. His concession speech last night was very admirable, and I wish that kind of language was emulated more throughout the rest of his campaign. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik, Bignole and Alien have you read this link [1] and [2]? Sounds scary. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought Erik, Bignole and Alien were British for some reason. Anyway, I admit I was not satisfied with either candidate, but I probably would favor Obama a little bit more for personal reasons. We can all at least HOPE for the best to get this country back in shape.Wildroot (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a cool image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cookie!

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Captian Jack Sparrow

I'm sorry i didn't state why i moved this page. CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow is the full correct title. As everyone calls him this instead of just Jack, it states his full fictional character name and title. Even producers and Gore Verbinski says his name is Captain, that's why everyone reffers to him as Captain status. That's his full name - it's like calling Sleeping Beauty just Beauty as the wiki title. It's not right. Captain Jack Sparrow is sufficient, don't you agree ? Jonny7003 (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama

Hey I changed Barack Obama's first term as President of the United States and requested that the transition page be moved to it. Also I said Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan all have these pages well only Bush has them, anyways thought I would let you know.--CPacker ^{talk to me} 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh god...

Please tell me this is a joke! --Closedmouth (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Spielberg needs to focus on Who Discovered Roger Rabbit. :) Wildroot (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Hi, A. Without having heard the commentary, it sounds as if "hinted at" is an interpretation, which would be OR. I think if LL were to have said, "Thor caused the thunderstorm and the Avengers script explicitly states this," then we might find a way to add something to the Hulk film article. It doesn't affect the movie in any way, and I'm wondering how critical that information would be to an encyclopedic understanding of the film. Just my two cents.-- Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen

I've cited virtually all the boosk available (there was one in my library that was checked out; I should check to see if it's back). From what I understand, Gibbons' new book is mainly a visual compendeum with little to no historical context. I'm going to still try to flip through it at Borders to see if there's anything useful. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I leafed through the book at Borders. Most of what I saw is already covered by other sources. However, the worst part is that there are no page numbers. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it, either tonight or the morrow. Steve ^{T • C} 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this adequately summarises the main points of the case without getting too bogged down in the technicalities. There's some additional information I wasn't sure should be added, but it's at the bottom of the page for you to take a look at. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think the article could be used to revise "Development", maybe phase out a few redundant citations... I also saw a bit about how Joaquin Phoenix was considered for Dr. Manhattan one time! That's definitely a useful bit, though I wonder why Keanu Reeves was not mentioned at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Evil Dead

Yeah, I remember hearing that they were going to make the remake and a sequel simultaneously. There were rumours that Nicholas Brendon was going to play Ash, which I was happy about because, you know, he's Xander (and let's face it, he needs the work). That got scrapped, apparently cos the fans were so vocally against it. I doubt they'll make another Evil Dead, but I wouldn't mind if they did.  Paul  730 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a compliment

I know it seems like old hat, but it is so nice to see a straightforward, succinct, well-attributed edit like the one you made at Thor (Marvel Comics) about the Thor animated series. I truly hope these kinds of edits serve as models to the next Wiki generation. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stuff (2)

I think it's a great idea! Only, we don't have to add to the MOS. Remember that they're style guidelines, dictating how to write content in an article. :) We can create Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources. It would be very useful to list resources like the ones you've mentioned. We could also include tips on how to search better... one tip I thought about the other day was to search the surname often. For example, if you search for just "paul newman" in some search engine for a subscription-only database wanting the best results, you'll get a lot of brief mentions. However, if you search newman and "paul newman" with the same goal, you'll find articles that are more exploratory about the person himself since journalists tend to use the surname over and over. When do you want to start it? I agree that we've needed something like this for a while. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some information about print sources, but I think I have my head too much into it. Trying to back away from it so everyone can understand. Does it make sense to a bystander? Also, I just saw the new Watchmen trailer, and I have to say that it's their best trailer yet. Definitely captures the backbone of the story! I'm still not sure about the ending, though... I read that MTV article you posted, and I have to agree with the sentiment that an otherworldly creature would unite the world. If the event was related to Dr. Manhattan, there would not be as much unity, just finger-pointing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be a useful pointer since I think it can be tricky for some editors to explore print sources. Doesn't have to be the only one, obviously... :) Maybe we could have a brief description of each website? Like we can expect interviews and set visits with ComingSoon.net, or CinemaScore results with Entertainment Weekly. Do you want to get more ideas from others or continue working small for the time being? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting you, but I don't think Wikipedia is going to crumble when one of its mummy film articles lack external links for a little while. I think he should have followed WP:BRD and started discussion, but let's AGF and see if there are any misconceptions that can be cleared up. I started discussion at Talk:The Mummy (1999 film)#External links, FYI. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Quantum of Solace at American Cinematographer. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably helps to know what the whole article was discussing. It seems to be focused on posthuman elements in film: "[Walter Benjamin] meant bullet time and the like, before which even natural processes can be seen at a depth of detail which paradoxically renders them artificial: 'The sight of immediate reality has become an orchid in the land of technology.' The camera and the edit make us all cyborgs of the eye." Bullet time in The Matrix is an example of how we would not be able to perceive such a scene without technology. So for when the Decepticon crashes through the building, "the most detailed reconstruction of what was hidden from our human eyes within the spectacularly visible violence of September 11, 2001" is a new example of this. The author also talks about the Transformers method of changing objects into weapons that were not weapons before... vehicles, household items, etc. He compares this to asymmetric warfare, where objects are used as weapons, like a car bomb, a plane as a missile (9/11), and the self (suicide bomber). The author also talks about how the perception of an individual hero is erased in the film; "soldiers" fighting against their "inhuman" opponent. As for the General Motors vehicles, while we know that Bay chose them for cost, the author perceives them as a representation of America at the "dawn of the posthuman past", referring to the conscription (compulsory recruiting) of individuals for a singular ideological group (no individuality) and the assembly line (transportation being the result of the line being something beyond just handmade). Hope that this rewriting makes sense... believe me, these writings are not easy to digest at all. That's why I drag my feet with Fight Club, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Break

Hey, I have rewritten my draft for a "Marketing" component to encompass the "Tagline" component, too. See draft here. I think I've made sure that the component is as universal as possible. I was wondering, though, since you've worked with a lot of films that involve tie-ins, is there rewording to be had? How do you usually judge if a film article should mention some merchandise or not? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thomas Rothman

I understand that it doesn't directly relate to him, but a fair amount of it does improve the article. I would greatly appreciate if you didn't delete it for the time being. When I restored the info, it had several cases of POV and bias in it, and I have tried to clean it up recently. I think the best thing to do now would be to sort out what is at least indirectly relevant and what is completely unrelated. I also think that, because it could currently be seen as biased, the article needs to include more information on the person, not just his career. Having that much info seems fine, as long as 1. the info is true and un-POV and 2. there is a fair amount of other info that is not related to Thomas Rothman's career. Many other quality articles on living persons have just as much focus on career, the only difference being that they also have as much on other aspects of the person. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New Bond?

Don't know if you've seen this, but... [3] - X201 (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination of Batman (film series)

Hi! I've seen that you've recently contributed to Batman (film series) and wanted to let you know that I am reviewing it for Good Article status. Talk:Batman (film series)/GA1 contains my current thoughts on the article if you're interested in taking a look and helping with improvements. You can contact me either on the Batman (film series) talk page or GA1 page, or on my talk page. I will probably not reply to any responses left here. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E

Sorry, I must be going color blind... — Edokter • Talk • 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Stan Lee}}

I noted that you started removing this tag from several articles. It's still links to a couple of pages. While I agree that it shouldn't be thrown around like User:Jump Guru was doing, what places should it be linked to? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you gonna look into this or may I proceed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. What do you mean "curbed"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who should we ask to get rid of it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IJ

If you really want to help out with Indiana Jones articles, why not join WikiProject Indiana Jones? I'll reward you... -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

WALL-E rewrite

First, having seen the sheer amount of quality work you do in the various movie articles, I'm honored that YOU would turn to ME for advice on this one. Thank you. To me, character design should fit as a sub-cat under "production". If/when the characters get broken out to their own articles, then their associated production items would be moved to those pages. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind if I think of something better. SpikeJones (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You've seen my opinion on the list of robots on the talk page, yes? SpikeJones (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not doubting your opinion on what would survive FAC, but the other robots do play a part in the film. Perhaps it should be handled as the List of Cars characters article has been built into? SpikeJones (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

to slightly continue this coversation, what's your opinion on the silliness of wall-a vs wall-e on the talk page? SpikeJones (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is amusing, thank you for pointing it out. Now I know how Steve Martin felt when he went on about how "the new phone books are here! the new phone books are here!". (on the bright side, at least it looks like there is one person there who understands my reasoning for not including the text.) I know, I know - drop the whole thing. But for the life of me I can't understand why that one extremely minor robot needs to have a description of what it looks like on the film page when a more famous robot (C-3PO) does not have any description of its looks on its own dedicated page OR on the primary films' pages. Seems inconsistent across the board (yes, don't base content on one page on missing content on another). Sigh. Well, on to inexplicably stir up trouble elsewhere... SpikeJones (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

It's always nice to have people that think they own a certain page, and of course prefer outdated and wrong info that the right info, and THEN threaten you with a ban on Wiki, accusing you of doing something you actually didn't do. Keep up the good work it is contributions like yours that make the site unbearable at times Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

Re: Rewrite

Well, that's... peculiar. If they are all new users, blocking them as SPU's and semiprot'ing the page should put a stop to it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man and X-Men films

Do you think it's safe to nominate both these trilogies as Good topics. Sort of vein of this. All of the Spider-Man and X-Men film articles are at GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! Well, I have already started with this. Wildroot (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

		Happy Thanksgiving!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving! Hopefully this one has made your Thanksgiving Day better. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You're a Scotch aren't you, AT? Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I've just read that calling a Scottish person "Scotch" can be considered derogatory. I didn't know that. So, er, sorry! Steve ^{T • C} 10:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk

In response to this edit summary, you can check the capitalisation in the cited source here. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot Stuffing?

You reverted an extensive series of changes to The Matrix with a single-line note and no real explanation. I don´t know wha "plot stuffing" is, but at a guess I would say you´re wrong about it being stuffed. I am considering rving your rollback, unless you have a real argument against doing so. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaws (shark)

Would you mind helping me revamp/clean-up and expand Jaws (shark), an article I've recently created? Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quantum

I saw Quantum this weekend. I have to say, I didn't like it as much as Casino Royale. The action scenes were really good, but Dominic Greene...not really that scary of a villain. He was like the equivalent of that guy from Tomorrow Never Dies, the newspaper mogul. I think the execution was just a bit off with this film, it felt like a different film. A continuation should feel just like that, a continuation. I was also disappointed that the gun barrel sequence was regulated to the end. I wanted something creative like they did in Casino Royale, something to keep it fresh. I didn't care for Alicia Keys's opening theme, though the SFX for that was good. I agree, the intertitles were nice. I just felt like the film was lacking something that I cannot put my finger on, something that CR had. I hope Craig continues to do them, and that they continue the story of trying to unravel the truth behind the Organization.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Really? I liked Le Chiffre in the sense that you are led to believe that he's some "great" villain, but really he's just some lolely middleman. To me, he made the organization itself seem all the more frightening, because, if this was the type of "middleman" they hired, who were they hiring for their top notch positions. I have to admit, I did like Mr. White as well. I especially love the scene where he's like "We have people everywhere, right?" and then the guy shoots M's assistant. That was awesome. It was all the better when M is talking about how people just say shit like that, but never really mean it.

I agree, I wouldn't mind having Olga back. Her acting was far better in this film than in Hitman. I liked how she was a vulnerable Bond girl, more than Vesper, which you really see when the building is burning down around her and she's frozen in shock because of her past trauma. I don't know. Craig only has what, one more film on his list. I'd like a complete Craig trilogy, where we tackle Quantum and then, if they replace Craig, we can have a new storyline with the new Bond.

When I get the Quantum DVD, I'm sure I will watch them back-to-back. That's my thing, I always go back and rewatch all the preceding films when I get a new sequel. I'll do the same for Batman Begins when TDK is released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was only contracted for 3 films. Either way, I prefer continued storylines to one-shot films that do little. I could handle it if they did other stuff, but it showed that they were still continuing their search of Quantum and everything connected. Maybe it isn't the primary focus for the film, but they acknowledge that Bond needs to work on some special assignment and let the teckies doe their job at finding more info on Quantum for a little while. Then, you could end such a film with Bond finding some loose connection to Quantum and heading off after it (thus, beginning the next film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace by a mile. But I still enjoyed myself at both. Gary King (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to put in a requested move to put Quantum of Solace (film) back at Quantum of Solace? I am not liking the unilateral move... I thought that option was going to be closed off after we fixed it last time. Let me know. Maybe we can just get a long-lasting consensus about this. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club

Do you subscribe to Empire? Apparently its readers ranked Tyler Durden #1 in the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Movie Characters. I'm using a URL in the article to support this ranking, but it doesn't quite make clear that the readers did the ranking. Do you think it's possible to cite the relevant page numbers from the magazine article to verify the ranking system and the #1 rank? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed Wood (film)

It would be cool if you did your own little polish on that article. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

In order to include that into the X-Men films Good topic, I have to put Wolverine on Peer review. Sorry, but look here for more details. Wildroot (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Friday

Well, technically they already are. It isn't like the information isn't there, I have it in my books...it's just the time spent getting it all out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually really excited about this film. Have you seen the new trailer? I think the character really did need a fresh start, and to get taken back to his roots (pre-Zombie, though Jason Lives is still one of my favorite Friday the 13th's). I have high hopes, and I was pretty impressed with what Fuller, Form, Bay, and Nispel did with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, though, Jason is a very different character from Leatherface. I'm anticipating that new documentary, as well as those new DVD releases of the first 3 films (with the third film actually getting a 3-D version).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read an interview before the trailer was released where Fuller and Form were asked about the original Friday trailer, where they counted the deaths, and they talked about how they would love to pay homage to that aspect of the film as well because they felt like the marketing behind the film was genius. So, I liked how they had the, in this case, 13 death counts on the screen. The Day the Earth Stood Still is on my "want to see" remake list. I don't know if I'll see it in the theaters, or just buy it when it comes out on DVD, but I do want to see it. I cannot say that I'm looking forward to Forbidden Planet or The Wolf Man. All the I have the original Universal Monsters collection, I just don't care for Del Toro. You can barely understand the man when he talks, and I really don't like having to fight to understand him when he acts. Hell, they should have gotten Gerard Butler for the role, he was becoming another Chaney/Lugosi early in his career when he first played Dracula, and then The Phantom. Then again, he's probably a bit to buff for the role now. I'm on the fence with Creature, because I haven't seen anything about it beyond talk. It's about time it got a remake/another film, it's been the redheaded step-child of the Universal monsters for a long time. I mean, as much as I love the movie, the last time we really got to see the creature was The Monster Squad. I really have no interest in Ceasar, and I don't believe that it will find any audience either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I wasn't really satisfied with my work on the Edward Scissorhands article. That's why I took it off from my userpage a while ago, and not officially "my" GA. However, I'm getting closer with the new rewrite. If you haven't noticed, someone from Sweden keeps bugging me and adding original research on my Edward sub-page. Whatever. Anyway, as for Alice, I'm starting to get a little open for mo-cap. I mean, had I lived in the 1920s, I would probably be one of those people who opposed "the talkies" or something, like The Jazz Singer. I really don't mind mo-cap that much anymore. It worked great for Gollum, and probably for Brad Pitt in Benjamin Button. It's just a real awkward use of technology. I'm sure Burton has his own way of thinking outside the box. After all, he is the guy who came up with an outsider having scissors for hands. Who would have thought that story? Wildroot (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

CGI is overused and it will probably be like that forever. At the same time, people should look at the bright side of the technology. Wildroot (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gort.jpg

Here is some information from my own talk page. I wanted to make sure you saw it. I had nothing to do with the Gort.jpg image.

Could you move this lame orphaned fan art to allow the Gort image on Wikimedia Commons to be added to Gort? Alientraveller (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload it. The image is not mine. Sorry. - Astrochemist (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews vs. scripts

You said: "(there's reviews of it, don't have to download it)"

I do not understand that at all. It's like saying "Oh, there's a review of The Incredibles - You don't have to see it. I don't think your deletion was sufficiently justified. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wolverine

What happened to the categories on the X-Men Origins: Wolverine page? Do you know? Th 2005 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Khan

Yeah, they do; I added a tad about that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

and thanks for all your help at PR and FAC. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

KHAAAAAN!!!! (What amazes me is that he spent most of his career playing down the injury that later confined him to a wheelchair; chewing scenery while suffering chronic pain is pretty hardcore.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, they really did rip us off for most of it :P Only fact I don't think we had was the Chippendale's bit... thanks for the find! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Dragon Ball (film)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dragon Ball (film), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dragon Ball (film) is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dragon Ball (film), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Undo

Yeah, it is different from the undo window I am accustomed to. Seems like it should have the same effect, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)

I know you've been working real hard on the article. It's really disappointing for me to see the low scores for the film. Now I'll probably just wait for the DVD :| Gary King (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christmas

It really does not feel like Christmas yet for me! I've been finishing up this semester, and Christmas is one of the last things on my mind. (Though the lights I saw in the town square last night when I went out did remind me a little!) I'll be going home next week, so I will get some shopping done then. I'm sorry to hear your frustration about future film articles and also disappointed to hear that people are dismissing Wikipedia outright. I mean, it's a film article... while I tend to be anal about citations and all, there is not much that is really controversial about the making of a film. What forums do you follow for the most part? Sometimes I glance at IMDb, but especially for new films, they have way too many threads to be able to follow. The only website that I've followed that has a forum setup is Fark.com, but they don't usually mention film articles on Wikipedia. I did see one instance recently where a user was chuckling over how Jackman "made noises" when working out to be Wolverine. :) Do you think that what you've seen will affect what you edit from hereon? Or is it just an nagging feeling?

I've been great overall. I had an excellent night last night with the other graduate students. I'm looking forward to the start of a new semester since I'm tired of everything from this fall. I don't know if I told you, but I got a job and hopefully will start in August. I'll be finishing school this May, so I am hoping to travel in between. I have not been off this continent (only been to Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbeans) so it would be nice to tour Europe. In the meantime, though, just going through the motions with school and trying not to do too much on Wikipedia. Do you have big plans for Christmas? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Extravagant meals are definitely my favorite part of the holidays! My mom is a fantastic cook, and going home is always a pleasure for my tummy. I don't know if we quite do TV specials... I think my family is more a fan of going and seeing Christmas lights. There are a couple of parks in our area where it is wonderfully lit up. I have not considered New Year's resolutions at all! One would be the best student that I've ever been for this last semester. Time management is always a key one... I need to free up time to work out and do some deep reading. You can see from my recent books page that it has a much slower rate than the recent films page. Oh, and probably make plans to move to my work location this August. Once I do that, I will have lived in nine places the last five years (different apartments at school and my internships). Whew! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I totally forgot about you doing that! Do you think the mainspace section could be updated with any new details? Inclusionist might be happy to see additional content. I am a little concerned that this one instance is driving the editor to challenge an entire guideline, though. Ah, well... back to watching Das Boot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, if you ever start wondering why you should be bothering writing your excellent film articles, just keep in mind that Transformers (film) is still averaging over 5000 page views per day, and The Incredible Hulk (film) is averaging even more. Heck, even older articles like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Jurassic Park still average over 2000. Keep it up. Steve ^{T • C} 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to nudge in on someone else's talk page commentary, my family doesn't do TV specials for the holidays, how does one get in on that?? Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations in the lead at Superman

Cheers for pointing out the policy on citations in leads - I'm pretty new here and it's useful to be told about these things. How would you feel, though, about copying to the lead one of the citations for this claim from the Themes section? WP:LEADCITE says there's no general exception to the need for citations in the lead, and since this is evidently a controversial area (as evidenced by the anon who struck the sentence) I thought it might be worth bolstering with a cite. Would appreciate your thoughts. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you've just done so - cheers. It's one of those cases where seeing the words "Some people have said", or "Some reviewers thought" invites the question "Well, who? What people? Which reviewers?" Having the cite right there heads that question off at the pass :) Gonzonoir (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wolvie and Terminator

I'm underwhelmed by the Terminator trailer, but that doesn't mean the film itself won't be good. To be honest, my heart lies with the first two movies and the TV show. This movie is kind of a "what if" story to me. I'm happy to see Arnie gone (more or less?) and the series returning to it's serious tone. I'm not thrilled for it, but I wish it well.

Wolverine... meh, extremely mixed feelings. Is it actually a Wolverine film or is it just X-Men Origins with Wolverine in centre stage? We seem to have origins for Cyke and Storm as well as Wolverine, with a seemingly endless cast of X-Cameos not relevant to Wolverine or his history. I'm especially conflicted about Emma Frost being in it, she deserves much better than a cheap cameo in Wolverine. A lead role in a Young X-Men film, for example. At the same time, I'm curious to see all these new mutants onscreen, but the movie itself seems like an unfocused mess. What do you think, am I being too negative? :S  Paul  730 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant to comment on whatshisname who plays Sabretooth. I liked that actor as Cotton Weary in the Scream movies, and I hope he can make Sabretooth an interesting character (I hate Sabretooth in the comics, he's so boring). No opinion on the Stryker guy, it actually took me a few minutes to realise he was Stryker. Cameos are great in moderation, but it seems like the leftover A-listers (Gambit, Emma, and Blob) have been shoe-horned into this because they didn't make the cut of X3. And young Scott is in a Wolverine movie why exactly? I haven't actually been following the films' production so I don't know much about the story itself. Wolverine: Origin is being adapted by the looks of things. I'll probably enjoy it no matter how it turns out, and maybe it'll turn out to be a gem. I was pessimistic about Iron Man too. :)  Paul  730 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said I'm conflicted, because on one hand grafting Cyke and Wolvie's backstories together seems horribly contrived, but on the other I'd rather watch Cyclops than D-list Weapon X characters. And I guess Emma being in Weapon X could be viewed as a vague homage to the Stepford Cuckoos? We'll see. To be honest, I think Fox blew their load with X3. They could have taken their time developing a long-running saga of proper X-Men movies, but they put too much in the third movie and now we're left with lame spin-off titles.  Paul  730 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind spin-off movies based around Wolverine, the New Mutants/X-Men, or X-Factor (government sanctioned team or noirish detective agency, so long as it starred Madrox I'd lap it up). But it seems like the main series is dead, so they're clumsily lumping ideas and characters that should have been in the X-Men movies into the spin-offs because they have nowhere else to put them. Like Gambit, he should have been in a proper X-Men movie. As for the roster, I wouldn't have minded a smaller, fixed roster of main X-Men throughout the series with other characters functioning in a guest star-style role. Instead, we've ended up with a bloated cast of underdeveloped main characters. A Young X-Men movie could go many different ways. I'd quite like to see a New Mutants-style story with new student characters and Emma Frost as the semi-villainous headmistress of a rival school. Instead, they seem to be going the X-Men: First Class route, which is less interesting to me. Who really wants to see a recast teenage Cyclops fawning over Jean? Even worse would a movie based on the fucking bland existing student characters like Rogue, Iceman, and Colossus. As for Xavier and Jean being dead, they're hardly crucial characters. The comics coped fine without them, and Cyclops is easily brought back with a "he never died after all" retcon.  Paul  730 13:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Beast in Magneto would be fun, everybody loves Beast. If FC is about Kitty and Iceman etc then why is it called First Class when they're clearly not the first class of X-Men? Surely the movie would star a young Cyclops, Jean, Storm and Beast? Joss Whedon's been talking about doing an X-Men movie since forever, I doubt it'll ever happen. If it did, he'd be working on the script until 2057, that man is hopeless at meeting deadlines. I'm not a Deadpool fan as such but I've never really read anything featuring him. I'm actually quite looking forward to seeing him in Wolverine but I doubt he'll be as comedic as in the comics. Have you been watching Wolverine and the X-Men, btw? It's really good, definitely the best X-cartoon ever made. Everyone is characterised really well, look out for "Overflow" where Emma battles Shadow King on the astral plane.  Paul  730 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's on YouTube under the cunning mislead Patch and Alpha Flight. The first episode is weak, but the more characters they introduce, it gets better. I hope they do a boxset, it's worth buying. There are some cameos from Dust and Hellion that are truly thrilling. Well, if you're a New X-Men fan.  Paul  730 19:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fray took something like two years for the final issues to come out. Whether that was Joss or the artist's fault is up for debate. Astonishing X-Men, which was only 25 issues and should therefore only have lasted two years on a monthly schedule, took four years to come out. Again, could have been the artist. But then there's his Runaways run and the Wonder Woman movie, and even Buffy has been struggling with delays recently on a Joss-written story. Awfully coincidental, how all his series are delayed. Admittedly, he has a lot on his plate, but that's really not a good enough excuse in my opinion. It destroys the pacing of the stories and people lose interest (I stopped caring about Astonishing and Runaways completey). I think he thinks he can get away with just because he's "Joss Whedon" and half the internet kiss his arse. Lol, sorry for the rant.  Paul  730 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Joss has admitted that he's slow as hell in some interview so at least he's aware of it. It pisses me right off though. His X-Men arc "Torn" consisted mostly of a big fight scene and was dragged out for over a year. I can enjoy it now in TPB format, but at the time I just couldn't care less anymore. Don't know if you knew this, but Kitty Pryde's "death" ended up being spoiled in Uncanny because Astonishing was taking too long. The whole X franchise just gave up waiting and moved on without it, and rightly so. As for Runaways, I think his run was pretty underwhelming after all the hype. Have you read Astonishing X-Men?  Paul  730 19:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Gifted" was a brilliant story, although the complete absence of Rogue was puzzling, given that the story was practically written for her and she was living in the mansion at the time. She should have cameoed at least. "Dangerous" was forgettable while "Torn" featured great humour and Emma characterization but was horrendously dragged out. "Unstoppable" was actually pretty good, although I wasn't fan of Breakworld and my opinion of the series in general was thoroughly tainted by that point. Plus it cameoed the New X-Men! Hurray. I wouldn't have liked it to have been a self-contained story, I prefer an all-inclusive Marvel comic canon. I just didn't like how it was set up as the flagship X title when it actually didn't do anything with the overall franchise. Then when the M-Day story happened, the other books had to kind of work around Astonishing because it refused to acknowledge other stories. Maybe if it had been clearly a secondary title from the beginning, with Uncanny or something leading the franchise, I would have been happier.  Paul  730 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It was Cyke's team, but if Storm can cameo in "Unstoppable" then why can't Rogue appear in "Gifted"? The X-Men appear all over each other's books, it's not unprecedented. It felt like a missed oportunity, since Rogue is clearly the character who would be most tempted by the cure. Beast filled that role pretty well I guess, but Rogue would have been the better choice. Even having her voice her opinion in some kind of X-meeting in the war room would have been cool.

I don't really like how bloated the X-Men's ranks have become, tbh. It's even worse now that Uncanny has no set team and just features a revolving cast of mutants. If I had my own way, I would have had the jaded older X-Men disband after the excellent Messiah Complex, only to have the New X-Men inherit the Uncanny X-Men book with Cyclops and Emma filling the Prof X mentor roles. It would have given us a break from the tired classic characters, and given the newbies a chance to become classic characters. A kind of modern day Giant-Size X-Men move. But with the New X-Men now broken up across half a dozen books, I now fear they'll disappear into obscurity like the New Mutants and Generation X before them. So much for moving forward. :(  Paul  730 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Millar has stated that because of the various Marvel movies, it's harder to write for characters who are becoming more like franchise properties than actual living people. It stifles creativity because Marvel don't want to stray too far from the films. He bemoans the fact that Fantastic Four was such a unique comic in the 60s because the characters really grew up - got married and had children - and then suddenly they just stopped dead and never moved past that point. Some of the recent developments have been impressive, Professor X becoming redundant as Cyclops grew into his leadership role, or Captain America dying and Bucky taking his place... but we'll see how long they last before Marvel pull another One More Day.  Paul  730 00:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. You doing anything special?  Paul  730 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, me and my mother are currently trying to figure out the timer on our DVD recorder so we don't miss Doctor Who while down at my aunt's house. What do you make of the rumours that it'll cameo all ten Doctors via stock footage or some such trick? As someone who's not a fan of the classic series, but interested in it's history, I'm quite excited. "Time Crash" was great.  Paul  730 20:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It just may have been tabloid rumours so I'm not getting too invested in it. It could be very memorable if done right. How familar are you with the classic series?  Paul  730 20:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of the classic episodes but I love how Sarah Jane acts as a bridge between the old era and the new. I'm also interested in the UNIT years, and am happy to see the Brigadier return in SJA (although I haven't seen that one yet). I've been thinking about getting Genesis of the Daleks since it features some of the characters I'm familar with.  Paul  730 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, love the SJ/Davros interaction. Nice they found time for that, given everything else that was going on. I might pick up Genesis sometime next week.  Paul  730 23:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See Zythe's talk page for my thoughts on the Eleventh Doctor. I'm not that impressed, what about you? He just seems like Tennant-Lite to me, but maybe I'm being too quick to judge. :S  Paul  730 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Daredevil (film) - GA?

Hey bro, I've been thinking that the Daredevil article is getting pretty close to at least attaining GA - would you agree? Would you be willing to look it over and give your thoughts? I know I pretty much just gotta cite the director's cut stuff basically and then I feel it's pretty much good enough for GA. Appreciate you taking the time to read this. -- Harish (Talk) - 03:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input =) I've put it up for a GA nom. -- Harish (Talk) - 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:Comedianliveaction.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen page scans?

Are you able to upload images from Watchmen? I think I finally have an idea of what images should be used for the article. I remember talking to someone about this months ago, but I don't remember who and your name just popped into my head. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it can wait then. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First off I'm thinking of some of the pages from the fifth issue ("Fearful Symmetry", discussed in the prose). The central spread isn't as obvious as I though I'de be (it's the pages where Viedt attacks his assassin) but given it's directly mention in the prose of the "Structure" section, we should go with that. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the great addition to the Team of Rivals page, I hope you'll help to expand it more in the future. DegenFarang (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Thanks. Nojojojo (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Erik (talk • contrib) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you had a hectic, tiring, but above all enjoyable day. Merry Christmas, sir! Steve ^{T • C} 21:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

File:Christmas tree.gif		Merry Christmas!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Merry Christmas! Hopefully this one has made your Christmas better. Cheers, and Happy editing! MISTER ALCOHOL T C 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Jaws (film series)

Hello. I see User:Snowman Guy contacted you over Jaws (shark) -- I've been bold an redirected it to Jaws (film series). Even that article was hideous, acting as a dump for copy and pastes from the other articles. However, I've been working on it tonight to try to mold it into the style of Halloween (franchise) (it still needs a lot of work). Since all three sequels are GAs, we should be able to get Jaws as a WP:GT. Looking at the other good topics, it looks like we'd need Jaws (film series) as the parent article. I'm happy to plod on, but I'd be happier if someone like yourself was able to overlook my plans. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I assumed that you were a Jaws fan as you usually pop up on my watch list looking after the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace (film)

Hi. I'm doing the GA review on Quantum of Solace. I'll be putting my comments here: Talk:Quantum of Solace (film)/GA1. You can ask me any questions at any time. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 02:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're the person who is going to make the main adjustments, my initial thought is that the lead section could incorporate some of the reaction to the film and its box office. SilkTork *^YES! 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum of Solace

The article Quantum of Solace you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quantum of Solace for eventual comments about the article. Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 12:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Frighteners

Hey, I've been working on The Frighteners, which is directed by Peter Jackson. Anyway, I understand that you owe the book (A Film-Maker's Journey, I think that's what it's called) written by Brian Sibley. Do you think you can contribute with info from that book and apply it in the article? That would be really helpful. Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quantum of Solace

The article Quantum of Solace for which you were the main contributor has been passed as a good article . Well done! SilkTork *^YES! 12:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!		Happy New Year!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy New Year! Hopefully this one has made your New Year better. Spread the harmony by offering this greeting to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Mister Alcohol/HappyNewYear}} to their talk page with a friendly message.)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Khan and such

Actually, I was thinking bigger—I've begun work on List of Star Trek films and think it would be best as part of a 12-article FT. It's a long way off, granted. I recently ordered the 2-disc edition of STVI, but now think I'm just going to pawn off that and my STII and go ahead and buy the complete motion picture set. Star Trek: First Contact is a good TNG era one with a lot of info, but I'm not sure whether I'll get to it before The Motion Picture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know—I'm not sure it would make a good article vis a vis Star Trek in general, which could probably cover the general stuff. I mean, besides the fact that they are all Trek films, there's not so much of a dramatic overlap or any sort of thematic similarities which could be unified in an article. I mean, aside from the list and perhaps a section on home video releases, I can't think of much else to add let alone merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, you shouldn't have told me that, now I'm going to feel really stupid if I spend $60 on an old format... :D is that a rumor, or confirmed? Either way, TMP and STVI are best bets for what I'll be working on next (I've bid on the motion picture issue of Star Trek: The Magazine and our library has The Making of ST:TMP on its shelves, so we should be well on our way :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, A.

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

is this really necessary?

Check out these edits on the film articles. Is an indication of "main protaganist" necessary? I would think not, but it seems....reasonable?...enough for me to not automatically revert. Your opinion? SpikeJones (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fake poster

DO you have proof that it's fake. IMDB states that it's real. --Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Featured Topic

I noticed that Bryan Singer and his films would make a good Featured Topic. Singer's X-Men films are Good Articles thanks to you and Wildroot, The Usual Suspects is a Good Article thanks to J.D., and Valkyrie is in good shape thanks to you, me, and Steve. It looks like Superman Returns is being eyed by Wildroot and/or Bignole, so what's left are Apt Pupil and Bryan Singer himself. We don't have to start a drive at this moment or anything; just wanted to plant that FT possibility in your head for later on. :) BTW, I am a little surprised that your latest friend is really 34 years old... sheesh. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Crusade

Thanks for the help. I exhausted myself with the Crusade research and it's likely best for you to finish off the DVD and that gigantic book. Anyway, currently there's nothing else I can do BUT WIKIPEDIA because there is literally three feet of snow outside. There aren't any movies I'm looking forward to until like a month from now (already saw Benjamin Button and Valkyrie; enjoyed both). I'm glad it's 2009 because I get to start a new semester of easier classes. All of my AP studies are generally taken care of, but I still have to deal with a couple others (European History and Computer Programming). In closing, I've been working on another semi-stop motion short film. I constructed this little mechanical puppet over Christmas Break and I am pleased with the results. =) Wildroot (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More Watchmen

Hey, want to help me move some of the character information from Watchmen to List of characters in Watchmen (also, we should probably rename it to "Characters of Watchmen", since there's only one sub-article currently)?

movie top ten lists

Since you changed the Wall-E "top ten" listing to something less.... list-like...., you may want to take a look at this series of edits that added and/or extended other movie pages to contain similar top ten lists. Considering how prevalent it seems to be on various pages, I'm going to add a blurb on the film MOS talk page about whether it needs to be specifically addressed or not. Thought you'd want to chime in. SpikeJones (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Gladiator movie

Hello, Alientraveller, perhaps you were right to delete that historical section after all since two admins are supporting user:Erik in his action of deleting it. Perhaps you might want to look at it, and delete the section if you agree since you have been the most constructive contributor to this article. Did you think that it was synthesis at the time? Best regards!--drb (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind attention to this. Live long and prosper.--drb (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon in Empire

I saw on an IMDb thread that Moon had a two-page spread in the February 2009 issue of Empire. Do you subscribe to the magazine? If so, can you provide any useful information from the spread? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Empire, is it worth my picking up this month's issue for more State of Play information, or have you pretty much added everything there is to have? Steve ^{T • C} 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pixar Template

I see benefit for adding to/creating the templates for Brad, John, etc. But there is value in keeping the Pixar template as it is. Moving the Buzz spinoffs to the TS template makes sense, though. But Andre, for example, is on the Pixar Shorts compilation. What's your reasoning for proposing the idea? SpikeJones (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

JCOM was removed from the Pixar template because it has been announced as not being a Pixar production, regardless of who is working on it. If Stanton needs a template, then creating one is no big deal, and JCOM can appear there of course. Stanton's ref'd interview explicitly quotes him as saying "it's not being done by the Pixar crew", which is enough for me to say it shouldn't be on the Pixar template at all. As for Andre, it could be moved to a 3rd level under shorts, titled "related works" as a compromise, as people would probably freak if it was added to the main "original shorts" section. Andre deserves to be on the Pixar template, not because it is a Lasseter production, but it was a work from the company that would become Pixar. SpikeJones (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alientraveller, I would like to add some information to the Wall-e article. What do you think about it. Please take a look at what I have prepared on my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Revolutionary_Road.Sha-Sanio (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

North America

North America also includes Mexico, which won't release the film until February 13. Are you sure "North America" would be correct? It's a little bit of a politically correct term since the "domestic" box office figures are for the United States and Canada. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

I'm making good headway with the Cinefex and Cinefantastique refs I got from InterLibraryLoan; I've still got some 40 pages of PDFs to sift through, so I think the production section will be pretty much exhaustively covered (at the rate I'm going, it might be shot for shot.) One thing that's going to need sorting is where the crew is introduced; right now there are mentions without introductions and then later on in the article they are finally given a title or job. I wouldn't worry about it too much as I'm still adding in stuff, but once the content is all there it's going to need some straightening out. Other than that, the only thing I see missing is another solid paragraph or so of reception. Any other concerns? (God, copyediting this is going to be a bitch...)

Oh, and I just noticed that with the last 1900 words or so I added today, it puts the article up to 43 KB, beating TWoK's 37KB... it's going to be an epic article :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see about it. I don't think the galley is good for too much besides showing Valeris (and maybe a phaser, but the current Klingon blood one should take care of that.) The dinner one is a good idea, I'll see about adding more once all the content is in place so that we don't have to juggle the images too much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the worn panelling in the galley won't be easily seen unless we keep the resolution rather high; I'll see if I can get a cleaner version of this with a less obtrusive phaser effect from my DVD. (edit: I've uploaded it here.) I've finished adding in the Cinefantasique refs, so I'm pretty sure production is solid (53KB and rising!) All that's needed is more critical reception and copyediting now, methinks. I'm also trying to locate a flippin' image of Meyer that can be freely used, or maybe some of the other production staff. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why May 8? I added one more shot of the Excelsior and the wave just because it worked well in the plot section, but I'll look and see if there's some very clear Klingon ones which might be better used; I'm hesitant about adding any more FU shots with the four we have (I'm talking to some chaps on Flickr about getting some free people shots to fill in some more gaps). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose it wouldn't be a bad TFA on May 8, but is that such a great date connection? I mean, why not Star Trek II or X or what have you? Either way, that's in the future and it would be nice to have a Star Trek domination day :P I've added as many images as I could get my hands on and everything above reception is set in terms of content; I've ordered a few more articles dealing with reception off interlibrary loan and will continue to look for more to flesh out the release. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got the release beefed up to a fair size. Have at it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, now, hold your horses. First off there's a backlog at FAC so I'm trying to review as many as I can and clear up the entries so we have a speedy FAC, plus I wanna run through it myself once more and maybe get someone who owes me a favor to check it too :P Patience, padawan, we shall nominate it by the beginning of the new month... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I really have no clue which one I want to work on next, but I suppose TMP is as good as any (unfortunately I got outbid on an issue of Star Trek the Magazine that was devoted exclusively to the making of.—v3n8, December 2001 if you can find it somehow.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends. I'd rather keep the section titles the same across the film articles, but of course that's open to change if necessary. I've also requested one or two sources on DVD/video releases as well as couple of reviews of ILL, so hopefully I will get them and see if they can expand the video section a tad. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Will Smith as Superman

In this interview, Will Smith claims that he turned down the role of Superman. However, I highly doubt Bryan Singer would have thought of such a strange idea, seeing as how he claims to wanting an unknown actor from the beginning. Anyway, during my research for Superman (film series)#Aftermath, I read a rumor article that said Jon Peters offered the role of Superman to Will Smith (which I can totally believe because Peters is weird and eccentric). Obviously, I did not add it because of the WP:RS policy. Do you think maybe this is what Smith is talking about. I do, thus I believe this info should be used in the film series article, and not in Superman Returns. But I still think its best to get your thoughts about this. Wildroot (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Star Trek: Countdown

On January 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Star Trek: Countdown, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Did you get to see this film yet? If so, thoughts? Any suggestions for the article? I was thinking about nominating it as a Good Article candidate after the German hype dies down. Do you think it would be better to wait for the DVD or not? I don't know how good the DVD contents of Singer's past films have been. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"rvt rubbish"

Hi. I noticed this edit. I know if I was the person who cobbled that mess together, and then had it wiped away in the blink of an eye, with nothing more than than the message rvt rubbish, I'd feel just a little put out. Bless you for being on rubbish patrol, but would it kill you to be a little gentler with the newbies, wannabes and probablyshouldntbes? No one is so important that they should refer to other people's efforts as rubbish. JBarta (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite response. I was fully prepared to get reamed by some self-important boob who has neither the inclination or patience to deal with other people's editing crap, and then be firmly instructed in what to do with my "suggestion". Somehow, in a slightly twisted way, you let me down ;-) JBarta (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein new references

Would you please format the references for any new material so they are consistent with the remaining references? All book references should follow the format <ref>Author, p. 123</ref> and all quotes must be followed immediately by a reference. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Crisis

Hey, I'd like to suggest you drop by the talk page for Final Crisis to help the editors determine how to put together a plot summary for a work of fiction, as you have far more experience working with that sort of thing than I do. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work

So, I stumbled upon a Star Trek (film)-related article in the LA Times and thought I'd squeeze some of it into the Wikipedia article -- halfway expecting it to look all crufty like too much of the rest of the project's Star Trek articles. Alas, it looks great -- and looking in the edit history, I guess I'm not surprised to see your name. There's a ton of good, cited info. in there, and I'm not gonna wade in any time soon -- maybe there's something useful in the article for you (if it isn't already there). In the meantime, though, keep up the good work. --EEMIV (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Thanks for the thanks mate. I'll keep on stamping! Oosh (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The time is nigh...

I basically said "fuck it" to further copyediting, my other FAC stalled and died a pitiful death and I'm pissed. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country—Add yourself as co-nom if you like, you were certainly helpful :) Set #2 up, eight more to go... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the content from one more magazine that I realized was just lying around my library, (I guess another ten citations or so), but now the content should be completed. Check my revisions and see if I missed some grammar or something along those lines, I was typing on a library computer and might have inadvertently added some mistakes. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bond navbox

If the "template for all the movies" is a good reason to remove the succession box, then why don't you remove the James Bond actor succession box from Pierce Brosnan since there is a template of all the James Bond actors under it? And remove it from Elizabeth I of England since there is a list of all the English monarchs under it. And from Nikita Khrushchev since there is a list of all the Communist party secretaries under it. Same with Barack Obama and a list of U.S. presidents. They are ALL redundant. That is not a good reason to remove them though. --Inqvisitor (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, do whatever you want; it's not worth arguing over anymore. But most film series do not have 22 films produced in rapid succession by the same production company like the EON Bond series. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, is there any chance that you can participate in the WikiProject Films questionnaire? Your thoughts are very much welcome! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

F13

Thanks. So, is this on your "might catch in the theaters" list?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Iron Man

Hahaha, in my social media course just now, the professor showed a screenshot of the front of Iron Man (film). I thought to myself, "I know the person who wrote this article!" :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Shane Hurlbut

Regarding [4], I don't really think that a quote from Christian Bale is the best WP:RS source for personal information about the early life of this individual. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Bale Out

Thanks for the kind words. One step at a time up the quality ladder :P -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hi. As you appear to be one of the major contributors to the Spider-Man article, I'm alerting you to the fact that I have nominated this article to become a Good Article. If you are able to have a look at the article and fix up anything that needs fixing (sourcing, grammar, etc), feel free to do so before the review starts, or feel free to wait until the review starts to see what concerns the GA reviewer may bring up. Good work on helping to get it to where it is so far. :) BOZ (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man has been picked up for GA review, which can be viewed here. There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

Can you please explain why you removed the link that I had added to this page? The site referred to has additional background information about this project that is not all listed on the Wiki page. I thought that I was doing a good deed by adding to the Wiki page but now I'm unclear as to what should count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screenhead (talk • contribs) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy this. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

newt template

that template has always been around, but it was decided (see talk) that WP:MOSTM overruled the use of it on the newt article. It specifically states Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized. This would be similar to why we use "WALL-E" per Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration. Sure, I was in favor of "newt" vs "Newt", but have to go with the MOS, right? SpikeJones (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the page history back towards June/July. I had the page using the lowercase template way back then until I was corrected per MOS usage. Nothing wrong with bringing up an old conversation again, and better to define usage now vs when the film is released. I think the page was originally created as "newt" until it got moved to "Newt" for the same reasoning. History should show that too, I believe.SpikeJones (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ebert owes me some credit

LMAO, that was hilarious. Not just the last bit about Wikipedia, but just reading all the crazy crap that has happened to him in basically one sentence. Hell, we should replace the entire film section and just quote Ebert. I didn't expect, and continue not to, the film will receive very many positive reviews. The series has always been hated by critics. Hell, Siskel gave out Betsy Palmer's address and told people to send her hate mail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WALL-E copyright problem?

Can you chime on at User talk:Edokter#Wall-e? I am in conversation with an author who's article is cited, but insists that his article be listed under External links. I'm a bit at my wit's end. — Edokter • Talk • 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Film chat

I'm sure you feel different, but I can't think of a single summer tentpole film I'm dying to see. Contrast this to 2008, when I saw several movies twice and one (Tropic Thunder) three times. There are things I should like in theory (Transformers, Star Trek), but that involve fatal flaws in my view (being directed by Michael Bay, trying to recast roles inseperable from The Shat and George "Oh my" Takei) . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I will say this much: they have at least convinced me to buy a Dennis Quaid action figure, so I guess that's a good sign. Still not keen on the apparent Cobra Commander design. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Goddammit. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can you help me find the kind of source I'm looking for as mentioned here? It's a basic assumption everyone makes (including myself), but we really need something concrete to verify it, and I'm having trouble finding it. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears after the last page of the trade (which now makes me wonder if it was in the original issue). The English translation appears as grafitti in some scenes like the flashback during the Comedian's funeral where he and Nite Owl are quelling a riot. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you sort this out? WesleyDodds (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's just me, but I get really annoyed when I see all the Watchmen promotional material emblazoned with "From the visionary director of 300". There are several bones I have to pick with that. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Film article help for FAC

Hey there, I'm currently working on bringing Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to FAC, and if you've got time, I'd appreciate a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones/archive2. In particular, I'm wondering what the article could use in terms of content. I'm currently also going through the recent FAR that the article went through, so I'll be knocking down those points soon. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, nice job on WALL-E so far—it was a great movie. I'm curious, are you planning to add an Analysis section? Gary King (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

pixar template fun

lots of reverting to previous version that we determined was obsolete. You want to take a stab? SpikeJones (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I've seen your work in the Films Project and have great respect for it. If you have a moment, I'd like to make a neutrally worded request that you see the RfC at Talk:Delhi-6. The RfC concerns specific content less than it does questions of possible policy/guideline violations, including of reliable sourcing. Thank you for any input. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Were you talking to me?

I was really confused by this post of yours. Were you trying to convince me of your position? I can only imagine that you came across this post, and that somehow you misunderstood my point. Anyway, just so you know, you and I appear to be on the same side of this issue. Thanks for helping to eliminate this bling from the opening sentence of film articles. Cheers. Unschool 05:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see looking here, that you are the editor who added this wise policy. Great job, my friend! Unschool 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eva Green - are we in ye olde times or modern times?

Ye olde times? Really? Here is a question for you: if you add the expletive "was" to the end of the following sentence, which one makes more sense?

Green has a fraternal twin sister named Joy, who was born two minutes earlier than her <was>.

-- or --

Green has a fraternal twin sister named Joy, who was born two minutes earlier than she <was>.

"She" is the only correct answer, so I am undoing your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.224.197 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

ok first of all my edits were anything but vandalism. that was insulting. I feel that the cast section should be concise, telling you who played who and very briefly who their character was. in my opinion background information on actors who were merely considered for the roles is just clutter and doesn't belong. so I rewrote the character descriptions accordingly, where each character gets one line of information telling you what they are to the film. you will notice that I tried to change them as little as possible across the three movies. also characters who are equivalent, like legolas/gimli and merry/pippin, have very similar descriptions.

then I really felt that the three movies should have a uniform cast section, which they currently don't. this includes the bold type for the names - I don't care if they have it or not, I just want it to be consistent. I also made sure the characters were listed in the same order (except for justifiable differences like boromir in FoTR). Landr (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

born before her

Well, that solves our problem...Even though we disagreed, I'm glad we had the same objective in mind. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.224.197 (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Captain America

I probably should have warned you what I did. Anyway, I took our Captain America subpage from User:Wildroot/Captain America, and added it into your very you own subpage. Good luck and god bless. Wildroot (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for Thor. Wildroot (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Wildroot/Justice League

Because Justice League Mortal is completely canceled (thank God, terrible idea to begin with), I think it's safe to create a Wikipdia article about it. Would you mind helping me out with that. I have all the information we need concerning the development process, but it still is in need of a dire rewrite. I'll try my best to make the lead interesting, but helping one another is always a nice thing. :) Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Status update, Mr. Worf

I've got a feeling when the reception section is fleshed out this might top 70KB (fun times copyediting!) I've put out ILL requests for a handful of articles, and will start getting some newspaper reviews to begin the proper reception section. This one bloke runs a top-notch personal site with lots of info I haven't used, but I've been having a devil of a time getting a hold of old Star Trek: The Magazines (I even got outbid on eBay.) I sent him an email seeing if he could at least get me the page numbers so i can check the libraries. I'm shooting for completing it by the end of the month and starting a PR. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Terminator-salvation-poster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Terminator-salvation-poster.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

John Carter of Mars (film)

Hi there, please edit as you see fit, I can see your POV, and I also note you have a lot of experience in these sorts of articles. I will not be in the least bit offended if you cut what you think is overkill. I'd been doing a lot of work on the Barsoom article and the various novels in the series, so had plenty floating around to play with and thought it might at least give some context to what the series was about. Mesmacat (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to previous message - do you think any reference to the series or the world of Barsoom is unnecessary, or just that the background section should be paired down to a bare minimum focusing on A Princess of Mars, which as you point out is Stantons focus? If you want to take the section out, fair enough, but other wise perhaps you might suggest what IS useful for the film article and I can edit, given that I am familiar with the sources I quote from Mesmacat (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Since I can't seem to get a straight answer from User:Orangemike (so far), I thought I would ask you, Oh Guru of Science Fiction: What makes a theatrical film notable vs. not notable? In this case, the films in question are The Philadelphia Experiment, and also Philadelphia Experiment II, which was originally discussed as part of the former, then someone created a spinoff article, and Mr. Mike has now tagged both of them for deletion on the grounds they are not notable. Hence my puzzlement over the fundamental question. What makes a film notable or not? Would an appearance in Leonard Maltin's film guide be sufficient? Or is it something else that I can't figure out but which Mr. Mike seems to have figured out? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Policy

I suggest you take the time to review WP:TPG before you decide to remove other's suggestions to a talk page again, especially for personal reasons. For someone who edits as much as you do, it's curious you don't know them better. RoyBatty42 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's watching the Watchmen....not me

Not yet. That's why I haven't bothered to do any real cleanup on the page, because I haven't seen the film. I'm praying it doesn't knock Friday the 13th off from the top R-rated film spot of 2009, but I'm sure it will. :D. What about you? If you've seen it, did you enjoy it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Talk about staying too faithful to the film... I want my $10 and three hours back after watching that :P (And Dr. Manhattan attacking everybody makes even less sense than the squid!) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, it's called a film adaptation for a reason, it's impossible (as this proved) to make a faithful media translation. The actors weren't that great, and they constrained themselves to the source material too often—the neat, original touches they added were drowned out by the slavish devotion in other scenes. Tyler Bates's score disappeared into the overuse of commercial songs, which felt amateurish and cheap, not to mention occasionally jarring (Mozart's Requiem instead of original music for the ending? Come on.) The guy who played Nixon looked like he was the understudy for Cyrano de Bergerac. I could go on, but then I'd just be nit-picking :P Oh wait, also gratuitous nudity. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if "Editing" is the right choice. They only briefly talk about editing the actual film in the first paragraph. After that it's about not being able to film additional storylines during production, and instead being forced to do so later which they will turn into separate DVDs. Even if you took the line about putting those stories into the theatrical film, the majority of the section isn't talking about editing the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

About Spielberg..

Hey AlienTraveller. You love Spielberg as a director, right? How 'bout him as an executive producer? HMMMMMMM? Jal11497 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Raiders

You have your ear pretty close to the ground, so you might already have seen the transcript linked to from this blog. But just in case you haven't... All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "X2: X-Men United"

The film is NOT called just X2, its official title is "X2: X-Men United." The DIRECTOR HIMSELF states this in the film's commentary. Check it out. In the UK it was called X-Men 2 but that doesn't change this fact. When the director of a movie says that, "This is the film's title," then that is the film's title! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.105.65.67 (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Centurion

I created Centurion (film), which is Neil Marshall's new film. The recent Empire article gave me the heads-up about the filming being underway. The article also said it would cover the film more in the future, so if you ever see any tidbits in the magazine about Centurion, would you mind dropping them at the article or its talk page? Hope all is well! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man 4

Release date of Spider-Man 4 is confirmed by the production company, Marvel.

Cinema of Kollywood (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

But he casting has started from 2007. And wikipedians did not wrote any article about the film. So I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinema of Kollywood (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User Name writed wrongly

I'm actually writing films in every kind of cinema, understand. Anyway, I'm going to create a new user and redirect user:Cinema of kollywood to it. Cinema of Kollywood (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell earlier. I've already change my user and redirect my old user page to my user page.

World Cinema Writer (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermine, it's not your fault. Anyway, I've seen many user, whi just did like me, when I started to view user pages in Wikipedia for the first time.

World Cinema Writer (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Avatar

The part of about the special effects is indeed subjective - this is appropriate as it is a reaction to the effects. Reviews are always noted in film articles and reviews are all subjective. Your reason still doesn't explain why you deleted the part concerning the budget and how many people were involved.RyanGFilm(talk) 00:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Implemented other useful information from the article ---- Reviews are for the reviews section, which this page does not have yet because it hasn't been released."

Fair enough, Alientraveller. Fair enough. RyanGFilm (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Michael Bay -- Hahahaha! Good one. I feel though like he may be the devil - See, I hate his directing style and his movies, yet I somehow sucker myself into watching Transformers and will do the same with the second one. Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment. Hmm... who knows.RyanGFilm (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot how to indent responses, but I was able to find the code. My apologies :) RyanGFilm (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

McCoy

That was a nice addition you put in the Leonard McCoy wiki. Erikeltic (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Empire

Do you have this month's Empire? If you do, would you mind scanning the Damned United feature and emailing it to me through my userpage? Not a problem if you don't have it. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you could add it then that would be great. I had a flick through it in Sainsbury's in my lunch break today and it's not a huge feature but it looks good for locations info and a couple of director/actor quotes. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for what you've done so far. I'll have to have a good go at the article this week anyway, as there's some goofs creeping in. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, good question. I always thought the WP email could take attachments. Can you email it directly to me? wikibrad[at]live[dot]co[dot]uk Bradley0110 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Got them now. Sorry for the trouble! :) Bradley0110 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

re my contributions

dear Alientraveller,

I dont know quite how to interpret your message.

Should I assume that my contributions have not been "up to standard"? The links you sent seem to be about how to get things right.

Also, I have no idea why I received a message, does one pop up on editors' radar after a certain number of contributions?

Japanscot (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn

Looks like we've got ourselves into a silly edit war at The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn. What do you reckon the answer is. I can see a couple of ways forwards, for one we could remove the text box, for another we could work out a better way to have both, or we could leave it as it was before I got involved. What's the give and take on this one? Hiding T 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Spielberg

I restored Spielberg to the list of people with Asperger syndrome. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, only that I've looked over this list for a while myself and believe that his entry on the list is no less reliable than many of the others. I have added a header to the article to explain that none of the diagnoses are definitely true, and that speculation about any of them can be present. Please let me know if you think is good or if you still dont think Spielberg should be on the list. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek 2:Not The Wrath of Khan

I saw the Variety story on AV Club after I did the revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 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) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Can you do me a favor and outline your opposition to the new revision? You're more familiar with the controversy that took place than me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what people are trying to do anymore. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Please stop vandalizing The Last Airbender. Everyone who reads this are morons (no pun intended) and you have to write it that way. You do not source any information and you have deleated the entire cast section. If you would like to edit it please do not revert it. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Because it is supposed to be seperate from the cast. It is called CASTING which is part of PRODUCTION. I do not "praise" the show. The show WAS highly successful, it's not like I am making it up. Hold on, let me look at the movie guidelines. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Here is the official "template" we use at Wikipedia -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

If you look at my edit compared to yours, we have the SAME EXACT INFORMATION execpt mine happenes to be better explained (The Cast Section).Can we try to comprimise? How about we use my edit but put the CASTING section undreneath the CAST? The casting explains about the Karate trained star and Dev Petal replacing the other guy. It is just, my edit has an explination of the cast. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The Last Airbender

Can you specify EXACTLY what in the lead is making it so "horrible"? The names are pretty accurate, one is listed on IMDB and one is Avatar, which many people refer to (AVATAR: The Last Airbender). The series IS highly successful (why else would there be a film?) It is part of a planned trilogy. You have to explain that there is martial arts involved to explained why one of the cast members was trained in Karate (this is important because it not only involves this film, but possibly also future films). The creaters and produces are listed. It states when filming began and when the film is sheduled for release.

I didn't know about highlighting the guys name in the infobox twice, I'll fix that.

The Cast is listed with a discription of each character they play.

Production, Casting, Filming listed.

There is nothing wrong with that. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

unreliable source and bizzare switch?

what do you mean by that? i found the source to be pretty acurate so far and what switch? Behellmorph (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Schlindlers list....

is historical fiction.. Just so you know, I like the film a lot, it is excellently done.

BUT.

The only things in the book, and the film, that are real are that the central characters existed. This and that shindler protected a number of people from the Nazi authorities.

90% of everthing that is said and done in the book/film is the invention of the writer. Including, motives, behaviour, and all minor characters. The film was based on a historical NOVEL and as such is based on fiction. GOOGLE it. I was as surprised as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.111.63 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Simpsons

Cheers, looks useful! Gran² 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Tintin

I guess I agree with you to leave as is for the minute, because I appear to have lost interest. I like your idea though. Sorry for taking up your time. Hiding T 12:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Clash of the Titans

Clash of the Titans was moved to Clash of the Titans (1981 film), and Clash of the Titans (2010 film) was created. Considering that the page moves will be a pain in invoking WP:NFF, do you think we should apply WP:IAR in this case? Filming is supposed to start this month, so if it's pushed back for some reason, we can then invoke it. If you agree, feel free to move your contributions in the "Remake" section to the 2010 film article. BTW, any interest in Jonah Hex (film)? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you in favor of invoking WP:NFF if filming is delayed for some reason? Just wanting to have multiple opinions for the discussion at Talk:Clash of the Titans (2010 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re: X-Men

Yup... and I was going to give it 12 hours before seeing if the locks needed to go back.

Looks like it's back to the drawing board...

- J Greb (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trek poster

I'm sorry you don't like the US poster for the movie, but there is no option here. Just because you think it's "crap" is not a valid reason for reversion. That you think it's crap is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. Articles for movies use art from the US poster; so, too, must Star Trek. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I replied to your message on my talk page. Just letting you know. :) --From Andoria with Love (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek images

FYI, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now tagging the images used in the Star Trek (film) article for deletion discussion at IfD. [5] —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua & Trek images

Just thought you might want a heads-up - he's started to list the images from Star Trek (film) for deletion to get around the edit war you two had going... FYI and all that... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Trekneroship.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trekneroship.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:Blueflower.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jackson

You could not be more incorrect. I am watching the DVD commentary right now and at no point during this scene does PJ say it is NOT him. Where did you get THAT? Here is a link to someone else who caught it http://www.dailydigest.net/castfellowship here is a second link to someone else who caught it http://personman.com/peter_jackson_cameo_in_the_two_towers search "wild" on both pages to see their comments. Are all three of us wrong? Or just you. I am looking at the scene on pause on my t.v. right now and how you can NOT recongize that it is PJ is beyong me. Why are being so snarky about it anyway? It's HIM. Give PG his due credit!! (71.62.231.9 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

GA Nomination on I, Robot

Main page: Talk:I, Robot (film)/GA1

For your information, I've nominated I, Robot for a GA. Don't worry, I've made some clean up.[6] You can make some clean up too. And I don't no how to do so much about nominating GA, so please do some check up. Thank you - Dr. WCW - (Want to Talk) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another user-subpage

Since you follow this film better than I do, I'm positive you can take this responsibility. Wildroot (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!

Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but the country is really all I need.) You can just shoot me an email, or reply here, or via my talk. It's for a project I have to do involving Wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

London, it says UK on my user page. Alientraveller (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guessed you were a Limey by the spelling, I just had to check :P I'm trying to check user pages, but I'm basically spamming the message to more than a hundred users, so the time spent checking is rather low :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I put in the bit about Deadpool dying - the only thing I saw in the credits was Styker being arrested by some soldiers. Are there more scenes after this? Or is it part of the different ending to each reel?--86.41.143.219 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. What exactly did you see in the credits when you watched the film though? That's what I'd like to know. Thank you!--86.41.143.219 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 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) 07:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Drat

Looks like they put some good production info onto the startrekmovie.com site... but correct me if I'm wrong, since it's flash we can't actually link to it directly? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but then again it's also an official site so we have no idea how long it will stay up... meh. Probably won't see it until the weekend sometime, luckily I'm leaving Richmond (which has no multiplexes in the greater metropolitan area that I can reach) and heading back to DC for the summer. Nothing's been scheduled for the 7th or 8th, so I left a note on Raul's page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be seeing it tonight... I know the reviews have been good, but I guess I'm too much of a Trekkie/pessimist to be assuaged as of yet :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten Silver placement.

The film was only released on television and he only co-directed it. The timeline is only for theatrically released films. Mr Fist (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citation formatting

I saw your question on Gary's page. Could it be Reflinks? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Gary King (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The new citation on X-Men The Last Stand

I just noticed you removed citation no. 37 on X-Men the Last Stand. It was properly formatted and accurate however even though the Citation template page from Wikipedia was reviewed and used when the citation was added after the reflist2 it was not made part of the list and the final formatting appearance was incorrect. What is wrong? Why is that so? How come you removed the factual citation rather than format it properly and leave a comment on how a proper future citation can be made? Thanks! 75.84.21.239 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may point out you never fully responded to the question. The reference was valid as all the other current 36 references and supports existing context of movie reviews about the X-Men The Last Stand. If I were to canvass Wikipedia and seek out references posted they do not support directly the text of the page. In fact most are about supporting the claims made by the various authors indirectly. If you could please explain how Wolverines' has over 100 references posted and how each is directly supporting a claim by the author without being "unnecessary" links or overkill. The manner in which many on Wikipedia respond with vague guidelines supports the viewpoint that when a member arbritrarily does not like a reference, modification, edit or addition made, even when relevant and factual, they simply trash it and then throw a very vague set of guidelines to defend their behaviour. Reference no. 37 was removed, for lack of a better reason, because of laziness and where is the explanation on how to properly format a reference so it is consistent with all the others in appearance? I used the Citation template from Wikipedia but it seems that once a page is completed there is no possibility of editing or adding content despite the fact that Wikipedia claims that a page can be edited mercilessly by others and invites individuals from the public to contribute. I was scanning the Wolverines page and then read the X-Men Last Stand page and remembered this film review by this publication. I am amazed that there are so many hurdles in including an additional reference to this film when it has 36 of them while Wolverines has over 100. But that is not the entire story is it? I am amazed at the lack of support for anyone wishing to contribute in building informative entertainment content on Wikipedia outside of those already part of the club. 75.84.21.239 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A question was made as to why ref. 37 was removed on the X-Men The Last Stand. The response from you was not an answer but in the form of a question. This is known as a non-responsive tactic. My question is would you PLEASE put the deleted reference 37 in the correct format and explain which template can be used properly once a page has been published by Wikipedia if others wish to add or modify the content in it? After all this is what Wikipedia claims their pages are all about. Thanks.75.84.21.239 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work

Very impressive stuff over at Star Trek (film), nice job. Cirt (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Section on in-world inclusions at Star Trek (film)

I wanted to let you know that you're pushing WP:3RR on this section, as is User:Loodog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Given your good work elsewhere in the article, I don't want to see you get blocked for this. As far as the actual content is concerned, I believe it is original research - while some of the referenced sources make comments in general about the movie's faithfulness to canon, none of them actually make any of the statements which Loodog has used them to cite (except the first - while it does say "goes back to [its] roots", it uses it with a completely different meaning than Loodog uses it). As such, if he readds the section, I will remove it as OR. John Darrow (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Truman Show

I agree. Seeing as how the lawsuit never progressed any further, it was probably just a sham and therefore not encyclopedic. However, I still wonder how Warren Beatty plans to play Dick Tracy at 70-years-old. Also, should we revoke that peer review for The Last Crusade? Who does that guy think he is? Wildroot (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:MovieAbomination.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indy 3

Our article, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has got it's GA. Do you think we should make any improvement on it before preceeding it to the FA ? World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

fun with disney films

As someone who knows the difference between a movie and a video, please join our discussion currently over at Talk:List of Disney theatrical animated features regarding what qualifies as "theatrical release" vs "Direct 2 DVD" SpikeJones (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thor

I was just made aware of the sandbox you made for this film after creating one as well. If anything there is helpfull, feel free to use it. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also let me know if I can contribute in any way, I might have a few suggestions. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your unused references ?

I've noticed your User:Alientraveller/Reference repository. But, I've a question. What is the use of that? If that was useful, I'd create one for me too ?

Regards, World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cintiq

Thanks. I think someone added that into the article when I added the info, can't remember though. Gran² 19:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 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) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Big Fish GAR

As a major contributor to Big Fish, I thought you'd want to know that that article is currently under going a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps. The article currently fails the good article criteria, as detailed at Talk:Big Fish/GA1. Its reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Should be fairly quick and easy fixes. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Terminator Salvation

Have you seen it yet? I really enjoyed it.  Paul  730 23:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

revenge of the fallen

did you like just give up on working on it? you use to help all the time + it will be a good moivie AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

oh i see thats fine i just wondered since you contributed to it regularly and your lucky you get it the 19th i dont get it till the 24th AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

James Bond

The above article is being re-assessed as part of the GA Sweeps project The re-assessment has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:James Bond for things needing to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

X-Men films as a Good topic

If X-Men Origins: Wolverine doesn't get to GA status until July 30th, then the whole topic can be nominated for removal. Do you still have any interest with this article? Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OMIGOSH! I just saw the photos of Burton's Alice in Wonderland and I think I just pooped myself. I can't wait till early next year. Wildroot (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanish Mittal Bhatia's page

Hi, I just created a page of Vanish Mittal. I got a message mentioning the page had been deleted and that I cannot recreate the page unless I mention the reason the individual is important. I have done that on the discussion page of the page I created. However, I just wanted to check whether I'm doing something against Wiki policies or not. Because if I am, I should like to apologise and withdraw the page... Thanks Wifione (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Revenge of the Fallen Plot

Hi there, I noted your work on the Transformers plot. Unless you havent watched itCould you do your magic again on the ROTF page? A few hours ago, Advent child trimmed the plot to a level that warranted the removal of the long summary tag. I helped out too but as of Uker's last plot edit [7], the mile-long synopsis is back there. Hoping for a favourable response. thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of The Transformers (IDW Publishing)

I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. I have found some issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the artcile is to maintain its GA status. They can be found at Talk:The Transformers (IDW Publishing)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Nicola Peltz

I have nominated Nicola Peltz, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Peltz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —C45207 | Talk 00:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 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) 08:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket task force

Hello, Alientraveller/Archive 13, and thank you for your contribution with articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the task force page for more information. Thanks! — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 GA Sweeps on hold

I see you're on vacation, but just wanted to let you know that I just reviewed Spider-Man 3 for GA Sweeps and found a few issues that need to be addressed. It's likely Bignole or Erik will get to them (or I may if they're busy). I wanted to alert you to the review since you're one of the main contributors. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:PiratesDVDs.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) 05:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading File:Scarlettlives.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) 06:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)