User talk:Bignole/Archive/2010/May

Nightmare

Are you going to see it Friday? Mike Allen 01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will probably see it Friday evening, not sure. I love how they have kept Freddy's face a secret, unless they have officially revealed it now? I'll probably keep the Reception updated. The article looks well on its way to GA soon. Did you write most of the article? Mike Allen 02:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually here is a clear image of him (if you didn't know). Clicky Mike Allen 03:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of new interviews on the horror news sites. I'm sure some reviewers will comment on the new look. I thought there would be some early reviews already. I guess tomorrow then. Mike Allen 04:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Who doesn't want citations in the infobox next to the gross? Sigh, has this changed? It seems logical to keep it there while the film is still in theaters. Mike Allen 03:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I remove them once it doesn't needed updating anymore. Oh well.. lol. I'm about to leave as well. It (the IPs) will be hell the first few weeks, especially editing the plot summary. Because god knows film articles can't survive without a 2,000 word plot. Mike Allen 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So what did you think? I thought it was really good. Loved the ending. LOL Mike Allen 23:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK now the LA Times is saying the production budget is "around $35 million". Given the old LA Times article was written in July 2009 and new scenes were shot in December, it's probably accurate to say it's around $35 million now. I've changed the article to reflect that. Mike Allen 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the source was used for other things, I'm going to fix that... Mike Allen 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess we were "fixing" at the same time. I figured the ref name was left over from when you removed it from the infobox. It's fixed now. :) Mike Allen 01:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds and looks good to me. So I watched the trailer and noticed an image of this woman (as Freddy) that didn't make the cut. Mike Allen 00:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope there's some good behind the scenes footage on the DVD and a nice Director's Cut. OK, on the franchise box office how are the other horror franchises being calculated with this tool? What do you put as the starting year? Mike Allen 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you've done it that recently then there's no point doing it again. Also, have you seen this? The Blu-ray will have a 6 minute alternate ending. (haven't listened to the full interview yet) Also I've read (on a forum) that the original first scene was the kids having a house party, playing Guitar Hero, and Dean gets killed and falls off a balcony by Freddy. But as we know they reshot the ending in December at the diner. Mike Allen 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fuller about if a film is not conceived as a 3D film, it should not be converted in post-production. All this conversion from 2D to 3D is a rip off to the customers and it looks like shit. I like when producers/directors fight for things like that. Kevin Greutert (director of Saw VI/VII) also fought Lionsgate when they suggested converting Saw VI to 3D. Now Saw VII has been filmed in 3D. Btw, how do you like the Saw films (at least Saw I-III)? :P Mike Allen 04:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The only 3D film I have seen the new Alice. There was nothing really WOW about it; the 3D previews were more entertaining. Heh that's why I brought up Saw I-III, most people, even fans, don't care for IV-V. VI was really good (thanks to Kevin), the reviews show it, not the box office numbers. I blame that mostly on Saw V, since it was one big fail, people totally lost the little bit of interest they had left in Saw. Paranormal Activity didn't help, and I am glad PA2 is going to open the same day as Saw VII. I want it to end. Even the writers do. It is supposed to be last one and wrap everything up; they even brought Dr. Gordon back, finally. It may do well at the box office considering the 3D ticket prices ($12.50 here), though it will be released in 2D too. I'm just going to be let down if Saw 8 is announced. I watch it, not for the gore, but for the storylines. What other film continues the storyline(s) from sequel to sequel? I can't think of one. I've never seen you edit a Saw-related article before, so I assumed you didn't care for them (not many do on Wikipedia). The Saw-V articles are in pretty bad shape, but since I've been here I have cleaned up Saw VI (currently a GA) and actually made something out of Saw VII. Mike Allen 06:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've pissed a few of these fanatics off. I'm now the guy that allegedly "own" the articles, because I "won't allow" them to keep adding more and more to a plot summary. Whatever. I want and need to get Saw-III articles up-to-date.. there's so many good sources to go through. I need to do it before the sources are lost (removed) from cyberspace. Which reminds me, I will go through Nightmare's sources and web cite them so if one goes down, there's a backup and it will eliminate the issue of "having lost a good source". I've fixed a few dead links (most were url changes). It's a tedious "job", but it's worth it, IMO. Yeah I'll probably do that later today.Mike Allen 07:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You go to the archive page at Web Cite, add the url and your email and it will render a webcitaton link. To add it to a reference you add archiveurl= | archivedate=. If the original url is still up, you hide the archive parameters using the <!-- -->. So it will look like this. {{<!--archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5pTys6t7g|archivedate=May 4, 2010-->}} Mike Allen 20:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Where have you seen it done at? I tried proposing a better way to hide the archive link until it is actually needed, by adding a "deadurl=no (or yes)". But it was just suggested to use the !comment. Bah. I'm about to go visit my grandmother at the hospital, be back later. Mike Allen 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup! I found that out a while back after it the Saw VI soundtrack section was destroyed. On that interview they removed about Kyle, here's part of it but it doesn't discuss what's in the article (how he describes Freddy). There's another interview with FEARnet around the same time, but he doesn't discuss much in that interview. Mike Allen 06:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

I would just like to offer my apologies in the creation of Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. Judging by your page, you seem to be an Elm Street fan, and helped with the various related threads. I do, however think that a seperate article should be created at some point -- with the neccessary requirements. I was trying to find more appropriate reviews and infromation, but, the film has yet to be released (it comes out May 22) beyond DVD, would it be more appropriate then? I would just like your help in making this work, so as not to have ab inferior article. Will you help me with this? Again, I apologize if I was a pain. I certainly did not mean to step on your toes. -- Cartoon Boy (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi stranger...

It's been far too long since we last had a chat. How are you? And more importantly, what did you think of the new Nightmare on Elm Street? It gets released over here pretty soon, I'm looking forward to it. :D  Paul  730 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read underwhelming reviews, which say it's basically just a quick paint-job of the original. Not that I was expecting good reviews, but they would have been nice. Haley's Freddy is the thing I'm most looking forward to; Mears' Jason was the best thing about that remake. I'm not one of the crazy Englund loyalists, I think Haley could likely outdo Englund (who was often as bad as he was good). If all we get out of this film is a truly fearsome Freddy again, it will be worth it.

How is Nancy in the film? You know how much I love her, and I was worried they wouldn't do the character justice. Wasn't she meant to be a goth or something? Are there as many references to the sequels as there seem to be? Surely it's not a coincidence that the sexually-ambiguous Thomas Dekker plays a character called "Jesse"?

I don't know when I'll get around to seeing it. I want to go with my friend Campbell, but he's on holiday next week so it won't be until after that. Going to see Iron Man tomorrow though, so that should hold me over... have you seen that yet?  Paul  730 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds like pretty interesting Nancy characterisation. I noticed she's called Nancy Holbrook in this one, which I think is a good thing. It's a minor change, insignificant really, but it helps me see her as a slightly different character. She's still Nancy, but not the same Nancy. The Scout/Laurie thing is partially why I was worried... I hated Scout in RZH but really liked her in the sequel (probably because she was such a different character, and not regurgitating Curtis' lines).

Jesse is played by Thomas Dekker so he's gay as fuck whether that's a character choice or not. :P Not sure about the rock star thing, I think he's just gay and keeps it quiet so it doesn't affect his acting career. I heard Nancy works in a diner, that immediately made me think of Alice in Dream Master.

My friend cancelled tomorrow, so god knows when I'll see Iron Man. What do you think of Chris Evans as Cap btw? I like him, I've had a massive crush on him since Not Another Teen Movie but the fanboy in me wants him to go blonde.  Paul  730 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds good. You're making me look forward to this film. Without spoiling too much (though I'll probably spoil myself some time next week), what are the deaths like? I hope they're surreal enough to be Nightmarey (like Glenn's) without veering into cartoon teritory.

I think it was Zythe who suggested that Dekker might be gay. He said he'd seen him as a child actor in something, and he was very camp. Then there was all that nonsense about not wanting to play a gay character in Heroes. Nothing major, I just assume he's gay. Then when he was cast as Jesse in Nightmare I thought "Oh, how appropiate..." :P

Meh, Evan's Human Torch is history, it's not like he still plays that character. Granted I've not seen Evans in much, but hasn't he played serious characters before in action films? I dunno, I'm fond of the actor so I'm interested to see what he does with it. I would have thought of him for Bucky/Winter Soldier before Cap to be honest, since he usually plays supporting roles.

Season 9? It's been ages since we chatted, is that the one with him in the costume? How's that working out? I've not read the Miller comics, but I do own (but haven't read) The Long Halloween, which you might enjoy. The art in that is gorgeous. Tim Sale should draw everything.

New name

I haven't posted here in a while, but since you're the user that I talk to the most, I thought I'd tell you that I'm going to be changing my username to User:Dr. Faustus mainly because I wanted something separate from my other online accounts.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Not as much, to be honest. I haven't officially left and I probably won't, but I don't frequent Wikipedia as much as I used to. I guess it's a combination of being busy with college and a lack of interest that I used to have, unfortunately.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sic

I used to do edits like this one too, but MOS:QUOTE says: "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important." Thus the answer to why we occasionally use the "Sic" template is when "... the slip is textually important", such as Dan Quayle's oft-ridiculed misspelling "potatoe", or when the error is more than "spelling or typographical". Either that, or you should rewrite MOS:QUOTE; for more on that philosophy see User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Bignole

If you bothered searching for sources, you would find more significant coverage such as Fangoria. Joe Chill (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, there is NOTHING that says that reviews aren't allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop arguing if you can't point out where it says that? I've participated in hundreds of film AfDs and your type of argument never worked. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It says RELIABLE SOURCES make films notable! Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I brought it up on WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you even realize how many times that has been proven false? Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare on Elm Street 2010

Actually, movie articles DO NOT give away the detailed plot in the summary, as this constitutes a SPOILER. The most you would give would be a basic plot summary, as in "Freddy kills kids in their dreams". The abuse part linking them together is a major plot point.

Wikipedia articles following this include:

Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, The Godfather, Trois Colors Bleu, Platoon.

Need I go on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.248.239 (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's go to AFD

The Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy article has now established its own independent notability per WP:NF and WP:GNG. While nice for you to include 3 paragraphs in the franchise article... and I do apreciate that such information can then guide readers to the more comprensive article... those 3 paragraphs do not then create a reason to redirect the larger and more comprehensive article itself, as in this case a redirection would act to limit readers' greater understanding of the overall topic of a documentary itself... it being a new film that covers and includes subject matter not included in any other film in the franchise. And indeed, as the film is less than two weeks old, more and continued coverage toward its independent notability is a reasonable expectation. While understanding you have concerns toward existance of a seperate article for this film, perhaps we should take it to AFD so as to get a broader input in creating consensus. Of course, we might let in grow and improve through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving a List

Hello, Seeing you on the project page, I thought you may have some good advice. I am interested in improving List of The Backyardigans episodes. User:Staxringold recommended looking at WP:FL, where I see List of 30 Rock episodes is listed. Question, before diving into the deep end: Would the "30" list make a good example for improving "The Backyardigans" list, or would you advise a different approach? Thank you. Anne Maxight (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare review

Okay, so I finally saw Nightmare last night and my verdict is mixed. Don't get me wrong, it was largely what I expected and I liked it, but it had problems. It took itself way too seriously, and by that I don't mean it lacked one-liners and cartoony deaths, but it was just too melodramatic and dull. From the opening scene, the kids are all depressed and delivering OTT emo lines like "You don't know what I've seen!" In the original, we had fun scenes of Ron/Tina flirting, Nancy and Tina laughing at Glenn, etc. It was more light-hearted and made the characters more likable. I couldn't take the characters seriously in this because there wasn't enough build-up to their state of mind. It was pretty much "This is Nancy, she's totally depressed... feel her pain!!!" It was laughable, and the terrible acting throughout didn't help.

Other problems include excessive CGI... totally unnecessary. The Freddy-coming-through-the-wall scene looked far superior and creepier in 1984 than it did in this, and that was just a bit of spandex and some good lighting. A few other scenes like Freddy getting stabbed in the eye... why use CGI? It doesn't look real, it looks like fake computer graphics! For God's sake, get off your arse and make some practical effects! Some CGI was okay, like the class-exploding-into-dust and floor-turning-to-blood scenes, but most of it was cheap shit.

One of my biggest complaints was the crap characterization of Nancy. She was just a cancer sucking all the life and energy out of that film. Where was the warmth and the strength of the original? In fact, forget the original, she was just a really boring, uncharismatic character on her own terms. Almost all the Nightmare movies have strong, likable heroines but she was Bella-like in her blandness. I think splitting the focus across the other kids damaged her a little as well. In the original, Nancy's isolation from the other characters made her stronger, and made the audience care about her more. She was pro-active as well; original Nancy had a plan, and executed it well, while new Nancy just kind of stumbled around (which might be more realistic, but who cares, it's a movie and she sucked).

Oh, and "This is my world, bitch!"? That's almost as bad as "Say hi to Mommy... in hell!" Reminded me of Lori in Freddy vs Jason, which isn't good.

So on the good points... I really liked Haley's version of Freddy. It was a strange, awkward performance; he looks weird, and his dialogue was weirdly-delivered, but I think that worked well. I think the film's biggest achievement is making Freddy genuinely scary again; the scene where he faced Quentin was really powerful. I love how they've returned him to his pedophillic roots; the flashbacks to the pre-school, the scenes between him and Nancy, and the "cave" were all really disturbing. The whole "pre-school" element just made the film a lot creepier (the opening credits for example), it was always a bit tame in the original films how "child killer" Freddy was only seen targeting teenagers. I also liked the online articles about the other kids, which reminded me of Wes Craven's inspiration for the original film. Krueger's line were good as well, especially "Fuck you!"/"Sounds like fun." That was creepy, but it got a big laugh.

I've been quite harsh on the film, but I actually quite liked it. It was a solid remake and nice companion piece to the Friday reboot. None of the Nightmare movies are perfect, and it actualy outdoes the original in a lot of ways. At least it understands the character of Freddy, which is more than the Halloween remake managed (not to resurrect that argument). :P  Paul  730 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the final scare looked bad as well, another effect that looked better with cheap practical effects in the original. I liked Freddy's face, and didn't think the CGI was that noticable (except in that scene where he was on fire, during the burning flashback). His looked weird and alien, which seems to have pissed off a lot of fans, but I think it was quite effective. What did you think, I know you were undecided back when the first picture was released?

I think the 80s kids were probably more realistic, tbh. I think in that situation, you'd be more likely to rationalise/deny the dreams, rather than jump to the conclusion that your dreams are supernaturally killing you. Besides, the 80s kids were bothered; Tina and Rod were clearly disturbed by the nightmares, and Glenn was just in denial. Just cause they didn't go around spouting emo, melodramatic lines doesn't mean they weren't scared. That said, I did appreciate the remakes "micro naps" concept (even though I assume it's total fiction) and Quentin resorting to drugs to stay awake (Nancy was so stupid for refusing them). As you said, it was cool that the remake explored sleep deprivation more (even though it probably wasn't accurate).

Like I said, I prefer Nancy as the lone heroine, rather than the "Scooby Gang" vibe of the remake. Better to have one character with a strong arc, rather than numerous adjectiveness teens discovering information separately. Like you, I liked that the "Elm Street kids" actually had a tangible connection to each other and Freddy, that was something which was a bit vague and unsatisfying in the original. Jesse wasn't quasi-gay in this film at all, but he did feel like a middle class, wannabe-badass, compared to the original Rod who actually seemed like a potential criminal. Even though his nightmare was brilliant, I thought his death was a little dull compared to the creepier "suicide" in the original. I did like the idea though, that Freddy could keep playing with them in the dream for a few minutes after they physically died... that was disturbing.

Smallville sounds good, nice to know they're only a couple of years away from actually being "Superman". Unfortunately, Buffy has been less impressive lately. Angel was recently (and inexplicably) revealed to be the terrorist villain Twilight, and he and Buffy proceeded to have superpowered sex before ascending to become higher beings. The whole storyline feels like a bad joke, and I can only hope it's actually leading somewhere worthwhile. This is definitely the closest Buffy has come to jumping the shark, and I hope Joss knows what he's doing.  Paul  730 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I think what started as this, has become a decent article. I wanted to think about a DYK, but there is something wrong with "DYK check". It claims that going from "570 characters (103 words) "readable prose size" to "8382 characters (1381 words) "readable prose size"" is not a 5x expansion, when it in fact is far more than 5x. Any clue why it is wrong? Weird. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just expanded on the "controversy" section, renaoming it and placing attributed cited text in proper context with the original section and so pushed it over the DYL top. I realized that the DYK count was not going back to May 4th, but only back the last 10 days. My bad. More to do, and thanks again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Elm Street first script

If you haven't read it.. here's the original Elm Street script. It starts off at the house party. The ending sucks. Mike Allen 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FA request

Hey. I've put up another Supernatural article for FA here. If you are not busy, would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Ωphois 05:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Bignole,

I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page and download the file with the questions. This would take around 20 of your time. Thanks! Aresj (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bignole, thank you for replying. You will need to download the file using the link in my talk page, fill it in using a wordprocessor and e-mail to me (the address in in the document itself). If you prefer to e-mail the whole questionnaire as text in the body of an e-mail it is also ok. Thanks! Aresj (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)