User talk:Bignole/Archive/2011/April

Jason Goes To Hell/Freddy Vs. Jason/Jason X Continuity

I never payed attention to the special features so we're not going to go there. Whatever happens with Jason at the end of Jason X is not my main concern, but my main concern is accepting that Freddy Vs. Jason is meant to take place before Jason X and that there is continuity between the two since we're still having that issue. You say to Ghostkaiba297 that there's no real indication of where Freddy Vs. Jason falls but it's kind of obvious. The movie starts off with Jason being resurrected and lifting himself out of the ground he was apparently dragged under. Now you can ask yourself how he got there, but looking back at Jason Goes to Hell it ended with Jason being dragged into the ground. Freddy Vs. Jason obviously takes in present day 2003 as there's a billboard at the end of the movie that says Coming 2004 for a housing project during the fighting scenes between Freddy and Jason. Since Jason X starts off in 2010 with Jason apparently captured in 2008, isn't that enough to say that there is continuity between the two movies as there's clearly continuity between JGTH and Freddy Vs. Jason? Freddy Vs. Jason makes absolute sense being placed between JGTH and Jason X. Jabrona 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, that opening scene to Freddy Vs. Jason that deals with Jason rising up from the ground is implying that it's picking up from JGTH. I mean look at how that movie ended that obviously leads into Freddy Vs. Jason. I mean, Jason gets dragged into the ground and then see Freddy for a quick cameo all at the end of JGTH. Then in Freddy Vs. Jason we see Jason rising up from the ground he somehow got ended up in and most importantly, him and Freddy are together in their own movie. That definitely shows continuity between the two movies. Second, when it comes to locations that are intended to be the same in a previous movie, they can be different in a series, especially when you have such a long production gap that happened JGTH and Freddy Vs. Jason that was like 10 straight years. So keeping the same location of where Jason was pulled under at the end of JGTH to the makers of Freddy vs. Jason may have not have been much of a big deal to them. You were talking as if the makers of Freddy Vs. Jason intended to do their own thing, but again, if that was the case then they would have given their explanation of how Jason ended up buried in that ground in the first place if they didn't intend to follow JGTH (which wouldn't make sense if you think about it). But they didn't because it's implied to pick up from the ending of JGTH.

Also, I don't see Freddy Vs. Jason talking place 10 years after JGTH as how the gap production of the two movies were in reality. If we look at this rationally from the movie world's point of view and with the Nightmare on Elm Street series timeline being connected then JGTH happens after Freddy's Dead which takes place in 1999 due to an officer in Freddy Vs. Jason stating that Freddy's been gone giving Springwood peace for four years. JGTH apparently happens sometime before the movie. As for Jason being known as a legend in "Springwood", can we even say a lot of people knew about him in that area? Springwood is set in Ohio, and Crystal Lake I believe is set somewhere near New York City due to the eighth film with passengers on a boat going from Crystal Lake and Manhattan in just a matter of a few hours. Jason would have most likely been well known in his area and possibly not Springwood. So that one cop who did know about Jason would have possibly thought he was dead somewhere along the line. Also, the movie didn't have to mention the previous films. We knew about the events of the first movie and that he came back. It didn't have to rely too much on those events, such as Freddy Vs. Jason not having any characters mentioning any of the previous Nightmare movies, and the closest continuity of those films in fact having to take place dealt with the clips selected from them from seen in the opening monologue.

Your second paragraph strikes me a bit. I'm aware that the ending of Jason Goes to Hell didn't spark the idea of Freddy Vs. Jason and that the idea was thought about in the 1980s. I see the ending to JGTH as a backdoor pilot to the spin-off movie they were planning all along that finally went into production as they had to have somewhere to go from that ending now and couldn't ignore it. But what strikes me about what you said in this paragraph it that if you know that Jason X was intended to be made as a result of Freddy Vs. Jason's stalling and was set in the future to and intentionally pushed it back into the future so that it would not confuse fans in case they ever got the movie off the ground, then what's the issue with you not accepting the continuity between the two movies? If you feel that Freddy Vs. Jason wasn't meant to co-exist in the world with Jason X then what confusion are you talking about here? The only way there would be confusion is if the movie was meant to be set before Jason X. To me that doesn't make sense and most importantly, how can you not accept the fact that the movie was meant to pick up after Jason Goes to Hell especially after how it ended? Jabrona 04:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Very well then. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out though. Also, whenever I or some one else say, "it's obvious" on something it's basically implying how easy it is to see how something works based on information around it and in it. Like it's obvious to see why Freddy Vs. Jason continues from Jason Goes to Hell, why Jason X was made in place Freddy Vs. Jason; and why Freddy Vs. Jason can easily be placed before Jason X if that was the case. Jabrona 05:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Freddy had to search through hell until he could find someone who make em remember. And following Jason Goes to Hell, Jason's in hell. The way I see it, the only way for Freddy vs. Jason to be non-canon is if Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X were non-canon with the other eight movies themselves, but how can Freddy vs. Jason be non-canon with the series if Jason can be resurrected by a bolt of lightning but can't be resurrected if killed the way he was in Jason Goes to Hell. No body to strike with lightning, yet he's alive again in Jason X. And at the end of JGTH, Freddy has a cameo. A last-minute gag, maybe, but also could have been done to hint at a Freddy vs. Jason, which, as pointed out, was being planned around the time of Part VII (Paramount and New Line just couldn't come to an agreement to work together so they replaced Freddy with a telekinetic protagonist). Although the events in Freddy vs. Jason were not foreseen during the making of Jason X, were we supposed to think the battle would take place in hell or something? We know both of them are going to be resurrected and of course if they did have a Freddy vs. Jason planned they couldn't come up with some amazing resurrection in Jason X. He survives the end of FvJ remember.

On the subject of Jason's death in Jason X, by saying "Landing on Earth 2" that's kinda like a definite statement that he survived. I still think that's kinda like betraying your own Original Research rule. Without the film makers' evidence, there's no more evidence to his survival than there is to his death. He disintegrated in Earth 2's atmosphere and nothing was left but his hockey mask, can you explain that? Anyone who needs convincing can look at the Jump to Death menu, but obviously Word of God (as it's referred to on TV Tropes) isn't good enough for you if it's not stated in the actual movie. But you also say you want everything to be verified by a reliable source, isn't something stated by the film makers or on their official DVD menu reliable enough to go by? What could be more reliable than that? But just because they never officially state in the movie itself that he is dead you deny what the film makers have confirmed.

Ah, but I guess some people never change. And as long as you're in charge of this wiki, no one will force you to accept the truth. But still, we'll continue to debate it and I know a few people. Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, with what you said about him "burning in Earth 2's atmosphere" (without actually saying he burns to death, as we do see fire), and what IllaZilla said about Freddy vs. Jason "set before Jason X" and that anyone with a brain could do the math on the thing, I think the whole Jason conflict is resolved for all of us. Do you think so?Ghostkaiba297 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Bignole, I borrowed the following section from your Friday article for the Scream one but now I read it I'm a bit confused as regards to something. This is the section:

The Scream series, when compared to the other high-grossing American horror franchises - A Nightmare on Elm Street, Child's Play, Friday the 13th, the Hannibal Lecter series, Psycho, Saw, Halloween, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre — with figures adjusted for 2010 inflation,[41] is the sixth highest grossing horror franchise in the domestic United States at $398.3 million.[42] This list is topped by Friday the 13th at $671.5 million,[43] followed by the Nightmare on Elm Street series with $583.4 million.[44] The Hannibal Lecter film series with $579.4 million,[45] Halloween with $547.8 million,[46] the Saw series with $404.5 million,[47] the Scream series which is followed by Psycho with $370.3 million,[48] The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with $314.6 million,[49] and the Child's Play film series with approximately $199.7 million.[50]

I'm just a little confused with where Scream fits in. If I'm reading it right this section is only about America and the Scream franchise is placed above Psycho but according to the figures on the Scream page, Scream domestically only has $293 million domestic so Psycho would be higher. Just curious what I'm missing. Or is that with Scream also adjusted?

Btw, is it not possible to do this globally instead of just domestically? Are there not enough figures for the other franchises?

Thanks for readingDarkwarriorblake (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, not global franchises, I wouldn't have a clue where to start either, just the global figures. Not messing about with Yen or Euros, I just know at least for Scream and I think on your Friday article you have a TOTAL gross of $465,239,523 and Screams is like $500,000,000 so those figures. Someone, somewhere has already done the hard part and converted the yen, euro, deutschmark or whatever into a dollar amount. Though I'm aware information for the older Friday films isn't available in foreign territories so that makes it near impossible to do fairly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame, obviously its an American franchise but the global market is everything nowadays. I'm experiencing similar trouble to you in finding the sales figures for the DVDs for Scream, took me long enough to find the accurate release dates. But today you can quite easily find that stuff for Twilight. Its a shame. I tried getting in direct contact with the distributor but could never find contact details sadly. Oh well, thanks for the input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Character infoboxes on "list of" articles

I have asked this before but never received a specific reply. Is there any chance you can point me to the link for the guideline/policy/talk page conversation (or whatever) that talks about NOT including multiple infoboxes on "list of characters" articles? I hate having to run for help every time I run into this and it's come up again here. All of my searching on various infobox templates is coming to naught. I've looked in the TV MOS in general and on multiple character related infobox templates and can't seem to find what I'm looking for. Since you're the one who always answers my question when I bring this up I figured I'd ask you directly. Millahnna (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bignole. You have new messages at Millahnna's talk page.
Message added 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for help, as always. Millahnna (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bignole/Archive/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did use the talk page, consensus was and still is in my favor and I did not even realize that I had reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Are we not giving appropriate warnings any longer and just going straight to blocking? I find it odd that the other editor involved was reported a day later because they continued to revert back and forth, and I got blocked after I clearly stopped editing the page and just focused on the talk page discussion. I mean, obviously (I rechecked the history) there are 4 reverts there in a 24 hour period, but it's kind of retroactive to block someone the next day after they had already stopped long before the other user was ever reported. I don't know, that's just odd to me but however you guys see fit. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 5:47 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Accept reason:

Tivedshambo is right here. And I appreciate your reply. Like Tivedshambo mentions, just be careful to not revert beyond 3RR even if you are reverting to the 'right' version. You'll be unblocked in a minute. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement, as it is assumed that long-established editors like yourself know the policies such as 3RR. Having said that, I'd be inclined to unblock you (if the blocking admin agrees) as I don't see any gain in prolonging the block. Just be more careful in future - if you get near the point of 3RR, try dispute resolution instead. I'll leave a note on Wifione's talk page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 15:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about this block Bignole, I'm partly responsible for it. A couple of editors responded to the RFC and agreed with you that the actor shouldn't be added to the infobox cast listings. However, X4n6 dismissed our views and re-added the contested content, citing BRD. Given the fact that there was consensus between the independent editors, I reverted X4n6. He subsequently reverted my edit and it was clear he wasn't going to accept the third opinions, and since he was into 3RR I shopped him. I think your IMDB ref removals were classed as reverts too by the admin, which is why you got caught up in the block. Anyway I hope you'll accept my apology. Hopefully it's resolved the situation though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your input, please

Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-it's-been-filmed might per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG might (rarely) even merit a separate article. I do agree with your assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project) that once principle filming begins, we can likley gave an article about the film Superman: Man of Steel (now a redirect), but another comment at that AFD got me thinking of how WP:EVENT might apply in relation to WP:FUTURE and WP:GNG, and so perhaps remove any perceived ambiguity from WP:NFF in same the manner considered when WP:NF was first being created.[1] You were there as one of its principle architects... so please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A related discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability Your comments toward my attempt at clarity are quite welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Smallville

Thank you for going over my edits. Can you check out the information I added about the cast in the lead? I don't want it to not make sense. The part about the Kent's return and Rosenbaum. Jayy008 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's live

See Wikipedia:Future Films Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh Bignole, you're so famous...

Go to the last bullet point in "Film". I find that site incredibly addictive, they have a page for every form of fiction and fandom imaginable. How's it going anyway? Haven't heard your opinion on Man of Steel? I think Thor and Captain America look great. Slightly on the fence about First Class (the team roster is shit and there's no Cyclops, which is X-Men blasphemy) but I'm open-minded and it'll be better than Wolverine. Totally indifferent to Green Lantern, probably won't even see it.  Paul  730 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)