User talk:Paul730

New Freddy

I liked it, but I'm not sure how I feel about Freddy's new look or his voice (which could be different in the film). Also, Haley's short stature was really evident in the trailer. As for "feeling sorry for him", what I've read is that you're supposed to question whether you believe he did those acts or not. I'm not sure if you're supposed to question it all the way through till the end of the film, or just in the beginning. As of right now, I'm ok with it. Even if say he doesn't do anything (which I highly doubt, given that he has a glove to kill kids with, which is a staple of who he was before he died), I think it's interesting to take the angle of "mob mentality" and see how an angry mob can react even if they don't have all the facts.

I liked the bathtub scene. Since it's Michael Bay, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing what he did with Friday the 13th, which is find scenes that fans love from the original and find a way to weave them--in a slightly original sense--into the store. When I saw the pool the first thing that came to my mind was Freddy's Revenge.

I know they were trying to go for a genuine burn victim for his look, but I'm just not sure how I feel about it right now. You only get a quick glimpse of it in the trailer. I was more turned off by his voice. Like I said, that might not be how it is in the film. Given that they said that there would be (or was supposed to be) some synthesis of his voice digitally, that's something that wouldn't have been completed for a teaser trailer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually showing the trailer to Ali and she was like "aww" in the opening scene where he's pleading for his life. Immediately, I was like, "They've clearly proved that they can at least make him partially sympathetic to people who are not 100% familiar with the character" - even though she knows his story.

What in Halloween was lifted exactly the way it was in the original? Everything had its own twist, though it's twists were never as good as Friday the 13th's were on its revamped classic scenes (sleeping bag, anyone?). I doubt we'll see full on repetition, but as you can see in the trailer clearly there will be some similarities. I think it's probably more of those scenes being favorites of the writers, and as such they wanted to incorporate them.

I don't know what it is about the look of Freddy. I think that was my point. You cannot see it really clearly in the trailer, so it's hard for me to tell if I'm going to like it or not. I think it certainly looks creepier than the way he typically looks, but I'll have to see more of it to tell. It also looked CG in the teaser scene at the end, and I hope that's not the case. In the original films they also swapped between Robert's real voice and a digitized version of his voice. It depended on the scene. They did that in just about every film. I think it was very little in the original, and then it was just a matter of what scene he was in in the sequels for when they used it. We'll have to wait and see. A lot of it will be context and if you're really into the movie it'll feel more natural than if you aren't. For instance, I wasn't too keen on the changes made to Michael in Halloween II, but once you're watching the movie if you really allow yourself to get into they feel natural.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that Haley we'll do an excellent job as Freddy Krueger the man. I think it's still to be determined how he'll handle Freddy Krueger the nightmare demon.

But they weren't straight duplications. I can care less about duplicating a stupid walk home than duplicating a character death to a "T". Plus, the "Was that the bogeyman?" line is classic for the film.

I think that's what I was initially turned off by his look, because it kind of looked alienesque. It could just be my satiation to the traditional "look" of Freddy (though it has it's subtle changes in each film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In the original he never offers her beer. He also never comes any closer than the doorway. He doesn't attack her until she calls Laurie. In the remake he kills her right after offering her the beer, not mention it's a different setting. So, it's not near as identical as you're making it sound. I like the most of the film. Personally, I like seeing him go after Laurie in the ceiling. Plus, the whole scene where Loomis shoots Michael was changed rather dramatically. That said, I do agree that the Texas and Friday remakes were more entertaining, but I think that's because I felt like RZH was more realistically brutal than the Michael Bay produced remakes.

Like I said, they were going for more realistic burning. Stuff like this is probably what they were going for. I still revert back to me, "we'll need to see more of it" to have a definitive opinion.

Army of Darkness was the commercial sequel. The property had been bought by a major studio. I like it--I actually saw that before I saw any of the others--but Evil Dead 2 is probably my favorite in the series. I never felt like any of those films were "serious". Even the first one was over the top in its own way. That said, AoD is waaaay over the top and doesn't seem to mesh well with the other two which tended to keep a very similar tone with each other, IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot have it two ways. You cannot have reimagined scenes and then ask for something completely different. Otherwise, Zombie might as well have just changed Michael's mask to something completely different, and not utilized any original character from the 1978 film.

Spider-Man? What was cartoony in Spider-Man? We're talking the original, and not that horrendous stuff in Spider-Man 3, right? I find it hard that you would blame problems with Spider-Man on Raimi considering he was on a tight leash for the first movie. It's ironic, because the only film where he had full control was Spider-Man 2, and that was the best in the series. Spider-Man 3 they took it back from him because he didn't want to use Venom - we see how that worked out. Darkman is cartoony.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RZH did feel like two different films, but let's get something straight, Halloween is not perfect. I know you're in love with the film, but biased obsession doesn't change the fact that it has its own flaws. The fact that Zombie's imperfect film still manages to point out the flaws in Carpenter's film is proof of that. Carpenter has a more seamless film than Zombie, that is true, but it isn't perfect by any means.

I don't think the pumpkin bomb turning the board into skeletons is cheesy. I love the scene in the hospital in 2. To me that's vintage Raimi, and it doesn't feel over the top. What it felt like was Raimi being able to use visual shots (the camera running across the ground) in a style that pays homage to his old self (given that he doesn't really do that type of filmmaking anymore). I don't know what "Raindrop" scene you're referring to. Do you mean the one in original Spider-Man where he saves MJ from a bunch of thugs? What's cheesy about that? The upside down kiss is awesome, it's exactly what you'd expect any love-interest to do to Spider-Man, givne that he typically hangs upside down. I'm sorry, I think that apart from the hospital scene in 2, had I not know Raimi directed these films I never would have known. There's nothing about them that scream "Sam Raimi". If you watch Darkman--which I suggest, because it's still rather entertaining--after having seen Evil Dead you would instantly say "this has to be the same guy". After AoD he pretty much gave up the over-the-top, slapstick type of stuff you get used to seeing in his films. The Quick and the Dead, The Gift, just looking at this filmography you'll see that none of his films after AoD are anything like he was doing before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Zombie brings up a good point about Michael being able to drive a car. Who in their right mind would teach him to drive a car. That seemed a little contrived. But, not only can he drive but he can navigate rather well too-getting to Haddonfield without a problem. Plus, how did he get out of his room in the first place? Is the security at Smith's Grove so lax that he can not only escape his own room, but release all the other patients (at least on his wing) without anyone noticing it and putting the place on lockdown? Zombie also talks about finding the only mechanic in the world with a perfect jumpsuit? Then we get into the fact that Laurie is friends with the Sheriff's daughter--which allows her some sort of leeway on things--yet she fails multiple times to at least bring up the fact that some loon appears to be stalking her, wearing a white mask. Had she noted that to him, at least he would have kept a look out for someone fitting that description. It may be Halloween, but typically don't find too many full grown men walking around the neighborhood in broad daylight in a Halloween costume. You get especially skeptical when you think about the safety of the children that are going to be out when you learn that there is someone lurking around trees watching girls from afar. He can take it as a prank, but at least some law enforcement gene in him would keep his eyes open. Are Annie and Laurie babysitting the only two children whose parents don't call and check on them? That's just a quick rundown of problems with the story. I love the movie, but it's far from perfect. I cannot think of any horror film that's even near perfect.

OOOh, I like that scene. To me it was necessary cheese. You go from the seriousness of giving up being a superhero, to a little cheesiness on what he perceives his life to be like now without Spider-Man, and then back to the depressing reality that life isn't as sweet and cheery as he thought it would be without Spider-Man because he needs to be Spider-Man more than he needs to be happy. Anyway, NightDance and FvJvA came in the mail today. I'll probably start them after I finish The Night Flier shortstory from my Nightmares & Dreamscapes book that I bought.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's bullshit. You cannot chock up every story problem to "He's evil". Ok, if he's so evil then how did they manage to capture him and keep him locked up for 17 years? Again, minimum security can amount to one person escaping, not everyone. Minimum security does not mean "no security". There would have to be no one around to explain how all the patients were outside. Why is it that whenever you provide an explanation to any problem with Halloween it's always based on some retroactive opinion of Hutchinson? I get it, you love Nightdance, but I find fault in an deux ex machina explanation that "he's evil" and that explains it all. That's a cop out.

I didn't say "Annie", I said Laurie. Why wouldn't Laurie say something. She saw Michael in class, she saw him again while walking with Annie and Lynda, and she saw him again when it was just her and Annie. Then she bumps into Annie's dad and it never occurs to her to say, "hey, this creep keeps following me?" She's clearly disturbed by his presence, and doesn't appear to by Annie's explanation that it's just some dude from school.

Why wouldn't they need to call? Annie and Laurie show up just at dusk, and it's the middle of the night by the time Michael begins to strike. They were gone for quite awhile, and most parents call to check on their pre-teen children.

See, what you are pointing out are continuity errors. That isn't what I'm talking about. Continuity errors are a flaw of just about all films. How about a Sheriff that lets a clearly obsessed psychiatrist run around with a gun? It's one thing to believe him that Michael has returned, it's another to allow him to run around with a loaded gun when there are children around and he almost shoots the Sheriff for sneaking up on him. If this is a "happy little hamlet" where nothing ever goes wrong, then I think the Sheriff would have had some issue with Loomis running around with a hand canon in his pocket.

I like the film, but you cannot claim that it's perfect. Not even close to perfect. It's certainly unique when it comes to horror films (or, at least it was in 1978), but it wasn't perfect. Just like I'm sure Nightdance is probably horribly flawed, if it's written by that no-talen Hutchinson. ;D j/k. I am looking forever to reading it. I have the paperback of it as well, so it's pretty thick. Should be fun to read - it's my first Halloween comic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not explaining why he waited for so long to break out and kill is kind of something that does need to be answered. Even "pure evil" has motives of some sort. They may not make sense to most, but they are still there. Even following The Dark Knight's explanation, "some men just want to watch the world burn" - that's still an explanation. You cannot explain why he thinks the way he does, but you still need to provide reasoning behind it. Not doing such just means you couldn't think of anything good, so you just didn't put anything in. Again, you don't have to explain why he thinks the way he does, but explaining his reasons are rather important. If he just killed his sister, then broke out of Smith's Grove and started killing anyone and everyone he came across then you'd have an argument. But he doesn't. He kills his sister, then waits 17 years, then breaks out just to return to Haddonfield and stalk these 3 girls. There's no logic behind it; it's a major flaw in the storytelling. Why return to Haddonfield. He has a damn car, and apparently knows how to drive. If he can drive back to Haddonfield then he can drive anywhere. Why these three girls? I doubt they were the first ones he saw, because the first time he saw any of them it was peeping through a school window (which is a rather odd place to try and find your next victim). His actions don't make sense, and saying "he's just evil" doesn't solve the problem.

I'll let you know about Nightdance after I read it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think Nancy burning herself with the car cigarette lighter was a reference to Nancy burning her arm on the pipe in the original :P $©@®©Ξ 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Section break

LOL, something has to make sense in his actions because they are too specific. If they were more general, then I could agree with it, but they aren't. :P

Yeah, I cannot find myself watching Freddy on a repeat basis. For some reason, he's harder to rewatch than Michael or Jason (Jason I can rewatch almost twice a year). I don't know what it is about the films, but I find them difficult to get through on a repeat basis. Speaking of, I just finished the last of the re-releases, the remastered Jason Takes Manhattan. That one took awhile for me to get through. Kane Hodder was my favorite Jason, but I swear after the remake I'm in-love with Mears's Jason. I find it harder to watch Hodder, especially in Jason Takes Manhattan. I used to love that one simply because of how Jason looked, and now it's up there with JX and A New Beginning in torturous Friday films.

I picked up Phantasms II on DVD a week ago (they finally released it on DVD a couple of weeks ago - it was the only one out of the 4 film series that was never released on DVD in the US). I think that once I get Phantasm III and IV, I'll probably have a Phantasm marathon. You ever watch that series?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

VIII is where they took the "jason teleporting" concept to a whole new level. Before, you can simply chalk it up to him just knowing the woods better than anyone else - plus, before VI he actually ran after his victims. VIII has him literally go from point A to point B in no more than a camera turn. He was appearing out of thin air. It was beyond ridiculous. The unexplained way the young lovers' boat somehow drifts into the bay next to the Lazarus, when it was clearly anchored (um, hello it was the anchor that brought Jason back to life). Then there is the inexplicable ending, and Jason apparently going from an undeformed child to a deformed child. I didn't realize drowning caused you to become deformed. Then, is Rennie dreaming, or did she really see Jason in the lake. Plus, I realized today after watching it that I hate Sean (Rennie's boyfriend). The actor who portrays him sucks at acting.

As for V, it's like Halloween III to me. I like it for trying something different (plus, I'm a firm believer that if Halloween III wasn't called "Halloween" it would have been a success), but overall the film is a joke. A pretend Jason. If Tommy had been Jason the whole time it would have been good, but to have some random character be Jason--especially when they aren't in Crystal Lake and Roy oddly has cut outs of Jason???--just didn't make sense. It was an interesting concept, but one that could have been better played with either Tommy being Jason, or using that concept with an original killer instead of an established franchise character like Jason. JX is just horribly constructed. You know your franchise is doomed if you're going into space. Hellraiser, Leprechaun, hell, even Critters 4 was hard to watch and those damn things come from space. The film is just hard to watch. I love the opening title sequence, with the flames, but the film they used sucked. I felt like I was watching a Sci-Fi channel movie. I won't even get started on the mask, you know how I feel about that thing. Granted, I love the Uber-Jason look, but I wish that could have lasted more (maybe speed up the space stuff a bit, have him land on Earth 2 and give us like 30 minutes of Earth 2 stuff).

Phantasms are an interesting series. They're low budget horror films that are more cult films than main stream franchises like Friday and Halloween (though they started out as low budget as well, they eventually found major backers). I think the story is a little convolted in the original, but the sequels tend to do a better job of crafting a linear story. They're hard to explain. You'd have to watch them (or at least the first one) to get a real sense of what I'm talking about. The series is really hit or miss when it comes to finding a fan base.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that, but if Jason pulled up the anchor why not just walk to the Lazarus? Drifting would take hours, while he could easily just walk there and probably kill more people in the process (which I think would have been better, because you might have explained why he boarded the damn Lazarus in the first place instead of trying to pull a Dream Warriors move and claim "these are the last of the Crystal Lake teens" --- there's a cut scene on the DVD that reveals that these kids were the last in the town that would graduate). Plus, why would a bucket of toxic waste melt his face, yet a whole river of it transforms him into a child (who wasn't deformed, btw).

That's a good explanation, that would have been great if it was in the film. It would kept with the theme of Jason tackling superpowered final girls. Instead.... I don't know if Reeves was a soap star, but if he was then that would explain the horrible acting. Soap stars are renowned for their wretched acting skills. (Went to check...Yep, he was a soap star for 10 years on Days of Our Lives). Like I said, V is a good concept that was poorly executive. JX isn't brainless, it's insulting.

I mostly like Phantasm because of the music. Here is a basic taste for Phantasm, here is Phantasm II, Phantasm III, and Phantasm IV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. It makes little sense. I mean, you could work it so that he's chasing after someone and indirectly gets taken aboard this ship. IDK. The movie has a lot of problems.

Ooooh, of course. How stupid of me...the Necronomicon. DUH!. lol

I thought you thought Thom Matthews was hot? I figured you'd been all over Jared Padalecki as well. lol.

Yeah, the trailers do actually suck compared to other film trailers. I remember watching them on the DVD and going, "they marketed this film with those?" I encourage you to go rent the first one if you have the chance. You'll get a basic feel for it. It's a cult film, so I wouldn't automatically expect you to like it, but you just may.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I finished Nightdance. It was good, but not the greatest comic book I've read. I did like the jack-o-tantern death for Marcie. I think Ryan would have been more interesting if he was really Tommy Doyle, and Lisa was really Lindsey Wallace. I get that her connection to Michael is that she "looks like Judith", but I would have preferred a stronger connection--like she's experienced him before. It would explain better, in my opinion, why she's so afraid of the dark and why Ryan doesn't like small towns and already knows about Michael Myers (rather detailedly). I didn't have any problem keeping up with the characters, I figured the story was told from different perspectives. I didn't quite like how Michael killed a little kid. You've never really seen him do that, a part from Jamie and there was that whole biological relative storyline fueling that one. Overall it was a fun story, but I'm interested to read other Halloween comics to see how they all compare.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read "Charlie". I tried, but it was boring me so I stopped. TBH, I didn't care much about any of these characters. Lisa seemed like a girl who needed therapy more than anything. Abi and Ben were so randomized in the story that it's hard to care for someone when the first time you meet them they're already half-dead. I could have cared more for Ryan and Marci, but I don't think they went enough into their relationship to really give me that (sorry, a single panel montage of them meeting and falling in love wasn't enough for me). Nikki was probably the most tragic character in the whole story. She's clearly in love with Sean, who is just too blind to notice her. She dies before she can openly voice her emotions to him.

I did like the artwork, especially the scenes of Michael in the darkness that looked like they were taken straight from the original film. I also liked how Michael was treated as more of a child-at-heart than before. But at the same time I thought it was a bit confusing. I think it wasn't clear if they were trying to suggest that he's really just a child trapped in an adult body (metaphysical), or if he was just pretending to do childish things to throw off Lisa. He acts too intelligently in certain scenes (cutting Ryan's tongue and putting a mask on him so the cops think it's really Michael), and then too child-like simple (mainly the children drawings).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan and Marcie had enough banter to accept them as a couple, but not enough to care about them as a couple. Plus, I felt like Ryan's story was underdeveloped and basically forgotten. He seemed to have his own problems that were basically forgotten to make way for him "going after Michael". Abi was virtually non-existent. Her only purpose seemed to be to provide Ryan a reason to talk to the cops and ultimately suspect him as the killer. Seemed a little contrived to me.

It was overall fun, but it didn't keep my interest the way H20 did, or even Halloween II (1981) for that matter. I thought it was better put together than the middle sequels. The scene did remind me of Resurrection, and made me wonder if Hutchinson stole it because it was the perfect ploy to throw people off of Michael's trail. IMO, that was the only part of the movie that I actually liked, because it managed to explain away Michael dying at the end of H20 in a rather interesting, and not 100% contrived way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He vaguely touches on spending time in small towns the first time we meet him. He seems to insinuate that he doesn't like them for some reason, but that reason is never actually explored. Then, the next time they pop up again (just before hitting Abi), he alludes to the darkness and silence of Russelville. It's never clear if his issues are just with small towns in general, or if he's personally had some problems while living in them (or a specific one...i.e. Haddonfield).

Yeah, I like the retcon...but I also loved the original death in H20. It was perfect, IMO. When I saw it in theaters it just caught me by surprise (though, not completely, since I watched her grab the axe). You never think they'd completely kill their lead character like that. Nightmare deaths are always supernatural, and anything supernatural can be reverted. Friday never actually "killed" Jason till The Final Chapter, and after that his first resurrection via lightning opened the door to future resurrections via the same outpost. Michael has been the only character they've never completely killed--he always manages to "survive" the ordeal. So, chopping his head off was rather extreme for me, and well worth it for entertainment purposes. On the other side, I love the character and the films and enjoy seeing more. So when they retconned it in an interesting, and semi-believable way it made me happy.

Interesting theory on Ash's psychy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he grew up in Langdon, then potential (depending on the continuity and time frame), one could surmise that he could have been exposed to Michael's stop there when he killed Nurse Wynn and the two teenage boys. Just a thought. It just seemed odd that everyone else's inner thoughts were of troubling things, and his comments on "small towns" coupled with his oddly, expertness on Michael Myers made me think that he had had prior experience with him.

Even pure evil can be defeated, otherwise what's the point of fighting if you can never win? As for Busta, that was a low point for the film. Why rappers feel like they need to act, when they lack the talent, is beyond me. What's even more beyond me is the casting people who feel the need to hire them, knowing they cannot act. The basic storyline isn't that bad--Michael returns home to find people wandering around inside his house so he kills them--it just wasn't executed as well as H20.

Well, if the film ended at III then yes he was dead. But then again, if it ended with the original he was dead from the start. Given that in The Final Chapter he see him breathing, and there was nothing around to "revive" him like in the later sequels, it's assumed that his deformed neck/head region inhibited the paramedics to accurately detect a pulse that was probably pretty low to begin with. That, or they didn't check at all because an axe sticking out of someone's head was probably a sign that he was supposed to be dead. My reasoning for saying, "he must be alive", is based on the fact that you can see his breath in the morgue slot, and Trish injures him he actually pulls back in pain and noticeably limps along. Once officially resurrected that doesn't happen anymore.

Why didn't the same artist come back for this issue? I always thought they just worked steadily and released what they had finished.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever her name is, I was merely making a suggestion as to why he would mention it. I just feel as though something is missing from his backstory.

That line from Angel makes very little sense, btw. If there is no big win, and nothing we do actually matters then you cannot turn around and say the only thing that matters is what we do. You might as well sit on your ass, because the outcome will inevitably be the same. To suggest that "nothing we do matters in the grand scheme" would suggest that there is no free will, and destiny is set no matter what. If that was the case, it wouldn't matter what we did, because we'd always end up in the same place. Evil may always be around in some shape or form, but Michael doesn't represent "Evil" (i.e. he isn't the physical vessel for all evil), he merely embodies it.

LL Cool J had started acting long before H20 though, since the early 90s, and he at least learned to turn off that "rapper persona". Busta's character seemed like an extension of the same persona he gives when he raps - which is annoying. Granted, he was somewhat entertaining in Shaft.

Right now I'm reading The Lost Symbol, so I'll probably pick up FvJvA afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

I've seen the finale, but like I was saying, if it doesn't matter in the end then there is no point doing anything. The idea that Angel wouldn't be a hero if he just sat on his ass is irrelevant, because whatever actions he attempts to perform "as a hero" are voided by the fact that they don't mean anything. It's the equivalent of eating a double chili cheeseburger while running on the treadmill. What's the point of running on the treadmill of the outcome doesn't actually change. You just look silly trying. See, I don't believe that Angel "just keeps fighting the good fight" just for the sake of it. I don't believe that he believes "nothing will change". I think he keeps fighting because he believes that something can change. Hero's don't fight if they know the battle cannot be won. They fight because they believe that somewhere, some choice will be made that will allow the battle to be won.

Michael embodies pure evil, he is not Evil though - not even for the purposes of the Halloween universe. Think about it. If he was Evil, he wouldn't pick and choose victims. His goals would be more lofty, with mass destruction. Not necessarily in a supernatural sense, or even a terroristic sense, but even on a scaled down level it would be the murder and carnage of anyone and everyone he came across. Marion and Loomis never would have survived that night Michael escaped. Tommy Doyle would have been dead at the end of the school day when he bumped into Michael. Because, if he was just Evil itself, the entity, then he would kill without whim.

I have this horrible impression that is was Busta who convinced them to let his character Karate Kid Michael's ass. His character is so stupid that in any other Halloween film he would have been killed early.

I've liked every Dan Brown book I've read--and I've read them all. The Robert Langdon series is pretty fun, because you have a continuing character (like Kay Scarpetta in the Patricia Cornwell series, or Alex Cross in the Patterson books). Angels & Demons, The DaVinci Code and The Lost Symbol all have religious elements to them that make them very intriguing to read. If you've seen the film versions of the first two, and even half-liked them then you'd probably like the books. Most people feel the books are way better, mainly because the films don't have the time to spend on a lot of the elements.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I*'m sorry, but that's a load of B.S. It's always the result that matters. What's the point of the effort if the result never occurs? The effort might be considered "heroic", but the without the result it's merely one more turd in the toilet. You can poop all you want, but the only thing that matters is when you flush the toilet. If Angel and his team truly believe that they can never actually win, then they are fools for believing that and they truly won't ever win because of that belief. The only way evil can triumph over good is when it can make good believe that it can never win. If you know you can never win then your heart will never fully be in any and every fight. No matter how hard you try, you'll never have full devotion to the cause.

LOL. Oh, Busta's life changing saga. That's kind of why I appreciate Zombie's sequel with Loomis and Laurie. To me, it's cliched to have your surviving characters "re-think" their lives and basically become saints. Most people don't respond that way after traumatic events. They become as fucked up and depraved as those two are in that sequel. Ironically, Annie does have her "rude awakening" because of all that, but I think watching her in the film you realize that she really didn't become some "saint" so much as she became a recluse.

I don't know about Angels & Demons (because I haven't seen the film), but The Da Vinci Code's action sequences were all from the book. As for being "bored", I look at that as more "two worlds" of people. Anyone who liked the book wouldn't be bored by the movie because they actually cut a lot of exposition. On the same side, if people think the story would be boring then they probably don't read all that much to begin with. I figured as much as you read, even comic books, you might like them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference though. He failed to save her. It's not like it was one of those "there was no way he was going to save her no matter what he did". She was dropped off a bridge, that means she was savable. If she had cancer, then I'd could see it. He just was not able to save her. There is a difference between having the opportunity to make a change based on your actions, and your actions meaning nothing when it comes to the ultimate change. How is their threat so "undefeatable"?

LMAO, I love that line just for how ridiculous it is. It's cringe-worthy, yet still fun to hear. Well, Dan Brown presents his religious stuff more as "they've been lying to us the whole time" kind of deal, and then turns that into a race-against time to uncover the truth thriller. It's really interesting when you get into the meat of the story. Regardless, he often has tons of descriptions of real life buildings, statues, secret societies, and other historical elements that are otherwise boring to read in a textbook.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that merely means that it would be virtually improbable for them to beat them - not impossible. Anything is possible, but not all things are probable. When I heard that line, the first thing that came to mind was Freddy. Freddy can be defeated, but he can only stay defeated if you choose not to empower him. In the case of Angel, W&H are empowered by the evil acts of the world. Obviously, you cannot cure the world of evil acts, but slowly doing your part to reduce the evil acts can eventually lead to victory. It's merely a matter of time.

If you read a book of his, but are a little skeptical to start one based on religion, then read either Digital Fortress or Deception Point. Those two are not religious based, but they're still good thrillers. If you do decide to try one of the others, then start with Angels & Demons, because that's the first book to feature Robert Langdon.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind skimming over Friday the 13th (2009 film) to see if you see any major flaws. I plan to try and do some copy editing in the next couple of days and then go ahead and put it up for FAC when I'm done. I'd like to correct any major flaws while I copy edit, and generally neutral eyes that haven't worked extensively on the article are better at spotting problems with it (e.g., mentioning a name without identifying who they are, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whose" isn't right, because the series isn't a person. I'll have to correct that. You can cover events out of order (WP:MOSFILMS#Plot). It's easier to go ahead and say she's kidnapped then have to go, "He kills Mike and presumably Whitney", and then, "But Whitney is revealed to be alive". Since Wiki doesn't avoid spoilers it isn't a problem. I'll need to clarify that sentence about Clay and Whitney, because it also makes it seem like they are both using his love...which they both obviously are not. Just like with the first thing, "Paramount" isn't a person, it's a company. So, personifying it with "who" wouldn't be appropriate. The Zak sentence probably needs to be broken up for readability (which the copy edit will hopefully do). Yes, there should be a "the" there. I'll review the sources for the writing section to see if there is anything that can be used in a quote box. Thanks for looking over it. It's those types of things that always get you in the end.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I finished my first round of copy editing. Let me know what you think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks. After I see if anyone else wants to point out any issues, I'll spend time going through the webs-based sources and trying to show why they are reliable (as I'm sure it'll get brought up). Then I'll go ahead and put in the FAC. I want to get Trick R Treat, but I don't really care about Paranormal Activity. Let me know what you think of H2. I'm kind of ready for it to come out on DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't. It's legitimately talked about in the text in some detail. I stumbled across it just looking for a picture of his face, but all the screenshots sucked. The promo shots I found sucked as well because he was always turned at an angle and you couldn't really see his face that well. I found that image from some website that learned they were selling the unused bust (apparently, that was the intended make-up for the scene where Whitney stabs him in the chest, but they reworked the scene so they didn't need it) on Ebay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 3

Most of what you liked I liked, and what you hated I hated. I didn't care for the commentary from the paramedics, but it was short lived for the most part. I really liked the idea of the white horse, especially with the nice pre-explanation before the film. It helped to sell the idea of Michael's deranged psyche. I was fine with the length of the hospital scene, because I think it was intended to be long to sell the idea that maybe it was real. I do agree that the Red Rabbit scenes were useless, and totally out of context with the rest of the storyline. If he's tracking Laurie, why stop there? If they had put in some contrived scene of ghost Debra telling Michael to kill those that "hurt her", or some stupid shit like that...maybe it could be more tolerable. It's the most random scene in the whole film. I disagree about Brackett. My feelings were, he has been through so much with Michael, Laurie, Annie, and Loomis's new book coming out that it's understandable that things like a haircut would take a backseat to everything else. Even the way Annie and Laurie "decorate" seems more like him allowing something trivial simply because he's thankful he still has his daughter alive.

I couldn't help but notice that your likes out number your dislikes. :D I'm glad you were able to enjoy it. I thought you might, though I knew it would never be your perfect "Halloween". Based on what I'm reading with the new film, they probably won't pick up the Laurie storyline. Lussier seems to want to bring Michael back to his "Halloween" roots - though, in the least I hope they keep the continuity. I'm tired of Halloween constantly retconning continuity because they don't like what they had before. I mean, at least Jason and Freddy has the good decency to build on what they had. I mean, even if they didn't acknowledge previous films they didn't blatantly ignore them and rewrite their past. IMO, based on Laurie's established psychotic break and the whole shack sequence, you could tweak it so that everything was completely in her head the entire time and that she was the one that killed everyone. It would take some creative tweaking, but I think it could be done in a manner that allowed you to continue the use of Michael in the series.

I still think that Hutchinson's jealous that he's been regulated to comics and people like Zombie, whom he believes do no respect the original material, get to come in an make TWO Halloween films. IMO, those films could have been perfect, and I guarantee that he would have found fault with something. He comes across as having a hard-on for John Carpenter, and believes the man can do no wrong. Is there any comments from him where he actually manages to point out any problems with the original film, or does he think it's perfect as well. ;D

You cannot compare Michael Myers to Dracula and Frankenstein. Their iconic status is in a completely different universe from Michael's. Plus, they are single characters who don't get "rebooted" but "readapted". Michael is part of a universe. Given that the last reboot was only 2 years ago, I kind of think it's too soon. I'd rather have them tweak the next film to be in the same universe, but establish that Michael is still alive.

Explain again why Hutchinson hasn't written or director a Halloween film? I mean, if fans love him so much, why doesn't Akkad have him write the new film? Why are they going with Patrick Lussier, who's claim to fame is the recent My Bloody Valentine "remake"? I mean, if Hutchinson is such the shit when it comes to interpreting Halloween, why isn't he the one making the movie? It has to be a little frustrating for him to be passed up time and time again, when clearly his comic books are loved. And you cannot claim that "people who do comic books cannot do films", because Geoff Johns has done marvelous work with DC Comics and he has written from television, David Goyer, Frank Miller, Jeph Loeb, and countless others. Clearly, if you know a character well enough in one medium, then you tend to be able to take care of them well enough in other mediums. So, I ask, why hasn't Hutchinson made a Halloween film? And it cannot be because he wants to stick to comic books.

I understand that he respects the original, but IMO, don't complain about something unless you can show that you're actively trying to pursue something better. Don't sit there and say, "this film is crap" if you are not even trying to get in the ring to make something better. If he cannot do that, he just comes across as a jealous fan, whose feelings were hurt that he couldn't be the one to make the movie of his dreams.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations and reboots aren't the same. Dracula doesn't have a continuity. He has a single story. Michael has a long story, that gets rewritten, which is a bigger event. Also, having multiple mediums of the character isn't the same thing either. An animated Superman, and a live-action Superman don't have to mingle and it's still ok. But if I remade Superman the movie 3 times in 6 years it would be rather tiresome. Not a clear history for Michael? Excluding III he has 6 movies that chronicle his life from beginning to never finished ending. Then you have a retcon that starts it over from point B, instead of from the beginning. Then you have a reboot that starts it over completely. Two years is not enough time to start something over. You may be dissatisfied with Zombie's films overall, but the answer is to take them and shift them back to where they belong, not scrap them and try and start fresh when you just started "fresh" two years ago.

No, what I said was not all comic stories translate to film. I didn't say people who write comic stories couldn't write film. Again, "submitting" a script isn't really actively trying to pursue anything. Lussier isn't a big name. Most people couldn't tell you who directed MBVT. I can give you Zombie as a big name, but not Lussier. More people probably know who Hutchinson is than Lussier, whose directing credits include a lot of straight-to-dvd films. Hutchinson has a right to his opinion, but his over zealous remarks come off as more bitterness about not being the one to do a film than someone who just "cares about the characters".

P.S. Have you seen the commotion on the Smallville season 4 talk page? What are your thoughts on the Jes Battis article? Think it should just be removed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, being so close. He isn't Dracula. His story isn't that iconic. We also don't need to see "someone else's interpretation of the original", just so we can sit and watch more "well it's not Carpenters" remarks from the peanut gallery. Work the character back into a tone that fans can appreciate, but do it with what you got. You don't have to ignore Zombie's story to shift it back where he belongs. I already told you how you can do it. You just add backstory to the events of H2, and explain that it was all in Laurie's head. Hell, that would easily explain how she was in a shack being held down by an invisible person. Remember Loomis telling her that no one was actually holding her? This way you can work with the characters you already have. If you don't want Laurie, then don't use her. We went 3 films without her before.

No, my opinion is based on his attitude. Everything you've ever shown me about him has been negative reactions. If the only thing you have to say is something bad, then it comes across as jealousy. As a true fan can find solace in at least some aspect of everything, and doesn't just sit there like a child going "I hate it all".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. On less controversial topics--how do we always get back to his Halloween debate?--I just received my autographed copy of Robert Englund's Hollywood Monster in the mail. He signed it, left me a message, and even drew a picture of Freddy. I'm excited to read it....but it's coming after FvJvA, which is after I finished The Lost Symbol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you could. It's as simple as suggesting that the "characters" themselves tried to over-explain something they never fully understood. You address the fact that Michael is more than just the man they see, hence why Laurie was "connected" to him. She wasn't connected to the physical man, but to his essence (or so it can be explained). It was the evil he embodies, and given that she "killed" him in the first film, it could also be suggested that it was that event that connected the two of them on a psychic level. As for changing the events in H2 so that Laurie did it--you watched the movie. There are plenty of areas where Laurie's one psychosis is easily called into question, and plenty of moments that make you feel like it's all in her head to begin with. It wouldn't be a stretch to definitively state such a thing.

Take a look for yourself.

Moratorium in place on all Halloween/Zombie/Hutchinson/Carpenter talk. We'll just leave it as, I don't think Zombie deserves as much of the criticism that he gets--I certainly find plenty of things wrong with his films as both a film fan and a Halloween fan, but I appreciate what he brought to the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a completely factual statement. I've been a fan of Freddy for as long as I have Jason, and I'm not stupid enough to say "I like Jason better".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't able to speak to him at all. I wasn't aware of his book, nor his book signing until the day it came out (which was Tuesday, I believe). I ordered his book from his personal website, and requested that he sign it. I wish I could have been at the actual signing, that would have been awesome.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So, in Smallville news, it appears that so far Geoff Johns has gotten clearance for Stargirl, Hawkman, and Doctor Fate for the Justice Society episode that he is writing for season 9. He also said that they are staying pretty close to the source material for the look of the characters (stating specifically that Hawkman will have wings, and his big mace). This episode is really peaking my interest. I was excited already, because Johns gave us such a great Legion of Super-Heroes episode in season 8, that I was anticipating his return with the Justice Society. The fact that they (at least supposedly) keeping close to the source material for the character looks is making me happy. I wish he's write more for the series, because he does an excellent job capturing the characters he writes for. I'm also hoping they get clearance for my members of the JSA, because it would be really cool to see that there is typically more than 3 members on teams (you never see more than 3 JLA members in an episode at one time-with exception going to the first JLA episode in season 6....only 3 Legion members show up, and right now only 3 JSA members have been cleared).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just that we never see more than 3 at a time. As for introducing DC comics character, it really depends. To an extent, it's obviously just put in, but typically it's done with good taste and most have decent introductions. Obviously, you've seen Aquaman and the Flash's introductions, but they've done a bit better with some of the later ones. Black Canary is introduced as being a gun-for-hire under Lex Luthor, when he convinces her that Green Arrow and his team are terrorists. Then you see her more later. The Legion show up because the Persuader stole one of their power rings and went back in time to try and kill Clark. In addition, they came to warn him about Doomsday. Maxima receives a beacon from Clark's crystal (which was activated by Tess) giving her the impression that her "soul mate" was calling out to her. It worked out because it furthered the storyline of Clark and Lois's growing attraction to each other. For the JSA episode this season, supposedly they are going to appear because they've been watching this "new generation" of super-heroes and they don't like what they are seeing (many of them are letting their lives go to hell because of a bad choice they all made in season 8 that led to someone's death). At least, that's what I've read. That could be subject to change. That's a basic idea of how some are introduced. We're also supposed to be getting the Wonder Twins this season, and they will have the abilities they have in the comics, as well as the introduction of Oliver's comic book sidekick Mia Dearden. Plus, we've already had BAG come in for two great portrayals of Metallo in the first two episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You gotta get through it, because season 8 is pretty awesome and IMO season 8 is shaping up to be even better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 4

Excitement, I recently found out that the Justice Society episode will actually be a 2-parter. According to Geoff Johns, they wanted to make sure they could introduce the characters with the respect they deserved, so they're making it a 2 episode storyline. In other news, I'm almost done with The Lost Symbol, so I'll be able to move on to FvJvA. You still camped out at the Wikia?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in the typical sense. I mean, season two's premiere and second episode were two parters, but many times it's a matter of just having a cliff hanger for the main story arc in the middle of the season. We've never really had a 2-part character introduction like this before. Usually we get one episode for a new DC character.

It's been a long time since I've seen the first Ammityville. I liked the remake. I never thought either was scary and the "true events" behind it was all have come under fire as being staged. Did you like Hellraiser? Hellraiser II is my favorite.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Series? You mean Amityville? I could never get into them. I know they used to do marathons of them on TV during the Halloween season, and sometimes during the summer. I've caught a couple, but I don't remember enough to have a strong opinion about them beyond they never really intrigued me when I saw them (otherwise I'd probably remember more).

It kind of is. I think the original film plays up that angle more than anything, probably because it's all based on Clive Barker's The Hellbound Heart, and since he wrote and directed the original film it's probably the closest to his vision than any of the other sequels. I think the sequels tried to glorify the BDSM stuff, instead of viewing it as a thematical element of the characters as it was intended. A part from the first sequel, all of the Cenobites seemed to be created based on some delusion that the more hardcore they went into the BDSM world when creating the Cenobites the better and that shouldn't have been the case. The reason I like Hellraiser II is because you kind of get a glimpse at who Pinhead is, as well as the rest of the "original" Cenobites, and there's almost a moment of redemption in there. Let me know what you think of part 2. Hell on Earth (part 3) is an interesting direction they went, and I kind of like it more than most of the other sequels besides part 2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Did you hear that Sam Jones III (Pete Ross) was arrested on conspiracy to sell 10,000 oxycodone pills? news. Speaking of Smallville, the ratings seem to be steady and rising slowly for its Friday night time slot. When you add in the DVR people it's still averaging over 3 million viewers an episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I could go with that--Poltergeist being better...as I found that series to be a bit more creepy...especially the second film. I do have all of those films. Speaking of Ryan Reynolds, what are your thoughts on him being both Green Lantern AND Deadpool in the upcoming films?

Yeah...it's surprising, but at the same time it isn't. His career hasn't really gone anywhere...I mean, they wrote him out of the show and kept Chloe. They wrote out a character from Superman's history, and kept one they created. I mean, Pete could have easily been the Chloe character, but I think that was more a testament of Allison's acting over his. That said, the surprising part just comes from the amount of drugs. It's not surprising for actors to get into drugs, but typically isn't using them and not being some hardcore drug dealer.

I am excited about these ratings, and if they keep it up throughout the season (ratings and quality of episodes) then we'll probably get a tenth season. The CW president, whom everyone believes hates Smallville and is the reason it moved to Fridays, keeps issuing press releases every week talking about how impressed they are with the numbers and how they are the highest numbers they've had in over a year. That said, it's either Dawn pretending to praise the show just so she can cancel it later...or maybe she was proven wrong and it's showing her that it can handle the Friday night time slot enough to stay on the network another year. I really don't anticipate a season eleven, because I think they'd really have to convince Tom that the show would still be good. For instance, they had to do that for him to sign on for season 9 and 10, because he knew that they had reached a point where Clark is like 95% of the way to being the real "Superman", and that they would have to start really taking those steps on the show. He even acknowledged that it was time to start bending some of the initial rules (hence the new "costume" he wears). I'm hoping they'll break that flying thing some point this season, because there are a ton of Kryptonians on Earth right now, and it would really help him to be able to fly (which, btw, I love how they've explained that his lack of flying is a mental thing and not a physical thing).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know...I have a hard time seeing Reynolds as Hal Jordan. I could probably see him more as Kyle Rayner. As for Smallville, I don't think that Tom was saying the show needs to end just that there needs to be a reason to tell more stories. What stories will you tell? It can't just be "oh here's another season", but where exactly do you take the character. Clearly, they've found that direction for season 9, and according to the producers they have their endgame already envision whether it happens this season or the next...or the next for that matter. According to Peterson, before each season they brainstorm on how they would wrap up the season with the end they have in store should the network decide not to renew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner. Hal has a much darker path, one that passes through alcoholism, being the cause of this brother's dead, watching his father die in front of his eyes in a plane crash, etc. I do have some apprehension about him being the lead for two superhero films, but more about him being Hal Jordan. He's done "serious" roles (I love School of Life), but even those "serious" roles has him being rather funny. Hal Jordan really isn't a comical character. He's typically much more grim, at least from every comic I've ever read about him (and I have a TP of his becoming a Green Lanten, his first mission against Sinestro, and even his fall from grace when he became the supreme being/villain known as Parallax and killed all of the GL Corps). I think I'd have a hard time buying the role (though, I think that Deadpool was made for Reynolds).

My philosophy on shows is that a good show knows how to evolve its mission. No mission statement can last forever, and if you're show is good enough it can effectively evolve that mission. I personally would not have a problem with them evolving Smallville's mission from "before Superman" to just "Superman" (though, I think a name change might be suited...but then again a name is just a name after awhile). Doesn't the Buffy page suggest that the initial concept for Buffy (the TV show) was "High school as a horror movie"? Clearly the show evolved from that basic idea. IMO, if you can evolve it effectively then it's worth it to stay on. Plus, I'm slightly biased given that I'm a Superman fan above all else and the bastard Seigels were awarded the full rights back to the character (meaning no more Superman after the deadline of 2011, as they are merely money grubbing assholes who don't care about the fans), and since WB has no intention of making a new Superman movie any time soon--at least not before the deadline--Smallville is my only live-action outlet for the greatest superhero in the world. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference. Smallville hasn't said for years "we're not Superman". They've merely said "we're trying to tell how Clark became Superman". If you achieve that goal, then you set a new goal (if it's a good one). They could take a break, or just rename the show, but either of those options would still feel like "a cheap publicity stunt". The only other show that I can think of that does that is Power Rangers, and they change it up like every other season - so that wouldn't fit with Smallville. I stick with the opinion that as long as the stories are good, the characters still engaging, then I don't care how long it lasts or if they decided to continue the show under a new theme of "this is now Superman". I highly doubt they will. Though, I'm wondering if Tom is starting to rethink the idea of "never putting on the tights". The fact remains, popularity wise fans want him over Brandon Routh, and Erica Durance over Kate Bosworth. If Smallville did anything right, it was casting for these characters. Personally, if I was him, I'd realize that my movie career consists of poorly made remakes and I'm basically already only known as "Clark Kent". I might as well capitalize on it while I can.

Which Hellraiser are you talking about? You just watched the first one? I thought you had already watched that one? With the first one, and quite a bit with the second but not as much, the story is really about Frank and Julia, not Kirsty and Pinhead. According to Barker, Julia is the real villain and he wanted audiences to focus on that - unfortunately, they took one look at Pinhead and fell in love. Anyway, the first film is about their love/affair. What she does for him in order to have him back; which, ends unfortunately, poetically, terrible for her. Kirsty is kind of caught in the middle of all of this. A secondary character forced to act in a primary role toward the end of the film. IMO, you're supposed to feel some sympathy for her because she unwittingly opens the box--whereas everyone else does it on purpose because they want the secrets it holds--and then loses her father to Frank and Julia's deadly game.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate the fear he has about literally putting on the tights and cape, because frankly no one who has done has done anything else that they are remembered for. It's a reality of the character, because he's so iconic. To me, that can be a good thing. I'd want to be associated with probably the most recognized character in not just the comic world, but probably all of fiction. Plus, I believe that in today's world even if you did do that, and did several movies with the character, there are so many ways to distance yourself from that character and start fresh. I mean, look at Anthony Michael Hall. He went from geeky teen actor to established adult actor, with a vary diverse role selection. Look at Michael Keaton. He was known for comedy, and WB was almost adamant that he not play Batman for Tim Burton. It worked out great, and Keaton went on to do more serious roles to distance himself from his comedy roots. Jim Carrey. Granted, his best stuff is his comedy, but I find Man on the Moon and Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind to be among my favorite films of his and he gets critical acclaim for them as well. It might be harder being a specific role for so long, but it's not impossible. Plus, if you look at him he was clearly meant for this role. Not only does he physically look that part (especially in season 9...he's huge 1, 2, 3), but he knows the character probably better than any actor at this moment.

I wouldn't really say that I connected with the people in the story, and I'm not sure if you are intended to. I know that as Kirsty's story continues you learn a bit more about her, and her story doesn't actually culminate into Hellraiser: Hellseeker (the 6th film in the series). You learn more about the Cenobites in Hellbound: Hellraiser II, but again the stories is still not really about them or Kirsty as much as it's about Doctor Channard, Julia, and the Leviathan (the realm where the Cenobites live). The SFX for that movie were pretty good for a low budget, 80s, British horror film. Even compared to today, they are still pretty good. The skin could look better by today's standards, but the realism of everything else is pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess that depends on if they are lousy in a good way. I mean, I believe what you believe, but I also think there are exceptions to the rule where there are actors who are famous just for playing shitty characters. Look at Bruce Campbell. A part from Ash, who really isn't a great character just a funny one, he's done a ton of lousy B-movies with shitty characters. He embraces that, and it works for him. You point to him because he's "known for that role", but what he's truly known for is all of the B-movie characters he plays, even on TV. As for Englund, I would disagree with that assessment. He's only known as Freddy to our generation, but if you look at his career he was a really distinguished actor in theater and TV well before Freddy. He's like Betsy Palmer. To our generation, she's Jason's mother and nothing else, but to everyone that came before us she is this wholesome actress from the likes of Judy Garland and other famous actresses. It's all about perception and how you use it.

I'm glad you liked it, and that you finally understand why it's my favorite of the series (primarily for that ending with Pinhead's pseudo-redemption....I say pseudo because the reality is that once he separated himself from his demonic side he lost the power to actually be able to save Kirsty...which kind of makes him a tragic figure by the film's end). Do you have other sequels, or just those two films? I appreciate Hell on Earth (part 3) for the backstory they provide for Pinhead's human counterpart.

My feelings have been that what we see when the box opens, with the hooks and the skin, is the physical hell that each person goes through when they open the box. Once your dead, physical pain means nothing and so I always felt like the mental hell they become trapped in is far more torturous. I mean, do you think Frank would prefer being torn a part endless or being left in a room full of desirable women that he will never be able to touch or even truly see once the sheet is removed? For me, I always felt like the physical torture would be more bearable over time than the mental hell they are trapped in. As for whether it's "Hell" or just a demonic world....Hellraiser: Bloodline kind of answers that (part 4), because you get to see the history of the box and when it was first created and for what purpose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but I think that has more to do with the fact that his face is so recognizable as "Clark Kent" that the fear would be that whatever role he was in would be overshadowed by that stigma. The Fog and Cheaper By the Dozen are not that great, but to give Welling his credit his acting ability has grown substantially over the years thanks in no small part to Smallville. You can see that as seasons progress. My friend Ali would often--pardon the poor choice of words on her part--refer to Welling in season 1 as "gay face", because he would give this odd looks as the camera focused on his face. I think his lack of experience in acting caused him to provide these often misconstrued expressions that rarely fit the mood that was currently happening in the scene. Those looks basically disappeared by season 4, and now his acting is, pardon the pun, leaps and bounds above what it was. I believe he could actually handle a leading comedic role--because his comic timing on Smallville is great when he actually gets comedic moments--maybe even a romantic comedy. I just don't think he'd win the role because of the Smallville stigma. I think he's already painted himself in the corner with the role--it would take a very willing director to want to test the waters with him--so he might as well accept the hand he has been dealt and run with it.

I could actually see NB as Ash in a remake. He has that Bruce Campbell quality about him. I think unfortunately that he suffers a lot from TW's fate. People are afraid to give those types of actors--ones who are basically known for one role, no matter how good they were/are--a chance, because they're afraid that role will overshadow their product and actually hurt business. The idea that it would bring business has generally shown to not be that true. TW didn't bring The Fog any extra business, and if anything seeing him in a role that was less wholesome than his TV role actually deterred you from the experience. I think that is a pitfall of TV. I believe that if you get your start on TV it's much harder to transition out to film, than if you started in film then went to TV and then tried to come back to film.

Inferno (Part 5) took me several viewings to actually start to appreciate it and like it. Hellseeker (part 6, and the return of Ashley Lawrence) was good mainly due to the fact that you get to see Kirsty again and get some closure for the character. Deader and Hellworld are...eh. I wasn't really impressed or completely disgusted with either of them. My main problem with them is that they tend to take some liberties with the continuity of how the box operates and and feel less like Hellraiser films than the other D-t-V sequels.

To me it's a matter of finding that perfect mental hell. For Frank, "sexual frustration" would be exactly that. He's a womanizer, who preys on woman's vulnerabilities to satisfy his unquenchable sexual desires. His desires are so unfulfillable that you see how he easily would have an affair with his brother's wife, later use that sexual attraction from her to fund his way back to the living, and even be so out of control that he almost has to have sex with her in his "muscle" state. Sex is his vice. Even the box, to him, was supposed to open a doorway to unthinkable pleasures-which he probably thought would be sexual in nature. Unfortunately, he was given a world where numerous woman called out to him every minute, for all eternity, pleading for him to satisfy their own sexual desires only to have them vanish when he tries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that TW gets to stretch his ability that much on Smallville because Superman/Clark Kent is kind of a wooden character. The only time you get to see it is if it's something highly emotions (e.g., Jonathan dying, almost getting revenge because he's so angry, etc.). He rarely gets to do anything comedic, most of it comes with Lois later on--especially in season 8 and 9--but he doesn't typically get the storylines like the other characters that would require a true range. Personally, I think he's a better actor than some give him credit for, you just have to look at the right episodes.

Wow, you did go on a splurge. At least you got all the next Hellraisers, instead of a mismatch of sequels. I just started FvJvA, and already the dialogue is annoying me. It's not well written in my opinion, and some of the choices they are tending to exploit are getting on my nerves. The idea that Freddy is stuck in Jason's head, and is able to manipulate his thoughts in the real world. I'm still enjoying it, but not as much as I would like had their been better writing. At least Halloween: NightDance had good writing.

I still like Hell on Earth, and yest I admit it is highly cartoony. I think HoE was the point where the series "jumped the shark" in terms of a decent, low-budget horror film to a "Hollywood-bastardization" of the series. Your thoughts on Spencer's backstory, and him having to rejoin with "Pinhead"? Bloodlineis kind of the same, as far as cartoonish cenobites and some stilted acting, but you get backstory on the box so it serves its purpose. Inferno is going to go back to a more grim storyline and will have a different tone than the previous two.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically everyone's. Freddy is like in extreme camp mode (it's up there with Dream Child and Freddy's Dead), Ash's dialogue seems like it's trying too hard to be "Ash", instead of feeling like he's naturally say those things because he's Ash. Yeah, Caroline (I just past the part where he told her) seems like a contrived romantic interest for him at the moment. Like, they made her accept those facts so it would be easier to pass her off as the next Linda. I don't care for the idea of Freddy in Jason's head because it's not like Pamela. With Pamela, he was imagining her. With Freddy, he's clearly really there and he's able to control Jason's perception in the real world. What FvJ did was show that he could do that when Jason was unconscious, but if he wasn't he never had control over him. He even had to inhabit the body of someone else just to knock Jason out so he could deal with him in the dream world. It's just contrived, IMO, because it seems like that was the only way they could figure to get Jason to do Freddy's bidding again (rehash of FvJ).

I haven't seen DMtH, but I do want to. I'm really interested to see Raimi's return to horror. Bloodline, again, kind of continues that thread, but the rest after that revert Pinhead back to that "outside" force that hew as in the first two movies. Ever present, but really only there for the person that summoned him, and not to kill countless innocents (so to speak) in his wake.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 5

I find him worse than in FvJ. The whole "daddy" angle, seems more than just banging away at a counselor like in FvJ. I can see what you're saying about the look of the women. They virtually all look the same. At first I thought Bree was actually Caroline, and I was like "she just pulled that shit?" Then I realized that I wasn't actually looking at the same character. Yeah, but when Freddy does it he's doing it when they're asleep. The closest would be Jessie, from Freddy's Revenge, and in those instances he was sleep walking and had no real control over his actions. He's never, at least from my memory and I could be wrong, actually influenced reality when people were awake (dismissing New Nightmare because that's a blend of fiction and reality and it's kind of hard to distinguish between what's real and not in that film). If it keeps continuity in the basics of sense (i.e. continues a story) I always considered it "official canon". I consider Halloween 4 - 6 official canon, even though they are retconned later. I won't dismiss a film as canon just because it sucks...if so I'd be dismissing JX real quickly. The way I see it, unless it's some random stand-alone story that doesn't actually affect continuity in any way, then they're all official--to me at least.

I don't think we'll get any Trick 'R Treat sequels, at least not enough to make someone iconic. That first film spent more time on the shelf than JX did before being released. I mean, WB basically sandbagged that film from the start--for whatever reasons they have...which I cannot figure out because the trailers looked really fun (I await your verdict on if they live up to the hype)...but I see this as one of those cult films that may get 1 sequel in the future. And that's if we're lucky.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I do like so far...or liked when I read it, was how Freddy first got to Ash by preying on his fears of the cabin experience. I thought that was cool.

I don't think so about comics, so long as the story actually continues something and doesn't screw up the films at the same time.

Yeah..lol.."planned". The first film sat on the shelf in the WB vault for 2 years before they finally just released it on DVD. How long with this "planned" sequel stay "planned", before getting filmed and then sitting in their vault again. WB has too much on its plate right now. They set a release date for Friday the 13th 2, but still haven't actually greenlit the film. Really? I mean...really? They don't know what they're doing anymore. If it isn't Harry Potter then it's not a priority to them.

So it's an anthology-esque film? That's probably why WB didn't believe in releasing it theatrically. I didn't say that anthologies horror cannot make for good horror (I'm a huge fan of Creepshow, Trilogy of Terror, and Body Bags), just that it doesn't translate well to the box office. WB could have believed that as well, and maybe that was why it sat on the shelf for so long. Maybe they were hoping someone else would venture that type of setup out there to test the waters. I mean, who knows really, but it partially proves my point that anthology type horror doesn't perform well at the box office (in this case, it didn't even get a chance).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been nice to to have that sequence extended period. The hand thing happens in a few panels, and the mini-Freddy's is even less and goes absolutely no where. Secondly, what was up with Freddy saying that he wanted the book, when he clearly got the book before you went after Ash. That made no sense to me at all.

Yeah, but I feel like if they do a S-t-V movie, it will show. This wasn't supposed to be. This was supposed to be released to theaters, and often S-t-V films look exactly like that. It would be sad if the potential for a series is doomed from the start. I never said WB was smart though. I do want to see it now more than ever, since you say it's so good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So, are you getting into the Hellraiser series? I don't mean in the same capacity as Halloween or something. I finally finished FvJvA. I have to say, the art really started to go to shit toward the end. Sometimes Freddy would look really good, and other times he looked like some amateur drew him. Overall, it's a satisfying addition to the franchises, but I think the execution failed more than the absurd storyline of introducing Ash into the Nightmare/F13 universe. I'm about halfway through the Robert Englund book. It's pretty good. It's really interesting to see how he started acting, and he gives some really good info about the early casting and make-up process for Freddy on the first Nightmare. I guess I'll find out if he gives up more about the other films as well.

P.S. Could you come take a look at File talk:SmallvilleNewOpeningCredits.png if you get a minute. We have a rogue editor trying to upload fan art in place of the opening title card for various shows.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I could never really put them together. I've never seen Pinhead as "slasher"--a part from in Hellraiser III--so I understand where you're coming from. Interesting. I really like the Hellraiser franchise as a whole, but it's not something I can watch over and over again like Friday. Even Child's Play I have a hard time watching over and over again, because the "reveal" is kind of lost after you've "revealed" it once. I mean, you kind of know it's the doll from the start, but if you're just watching the movie and go in without actually knowing what the film's about then it largely leads you to believe that it's Andy for a good portion of the film. Then when Chucky finally does "come to life" (p.s., I love that line when Andy's mom picks up him and threatens to throw him into the fireplace--"You stupid bitch! You filthy slut! I'll teach you to fuck with me!"--it's so jarring when it finally happens.) it kind of ruins repeat viewings for the "surprise" effect. It's like comedies to me...there aren't a lot of them that I can watch repeatedly because they lose their effect after the initial viewing.

No no no. I found the initial theory of bringing them all together to be absurd, but after reading it I felt that the overall story did work, but the actual execution of details (e.g., writing, art, etc.) failed to capture what could have surprisingly been better. I feel like largely, there aren't a lot of characters that can effectively cross over. We've talked before how Michael would never fit, because the only way to do that would be if he and Jason never actually fought--because the fact is that Jason would kill him in a fight--then you have Pinhead who is basically controlled by a little box. Unless you're the one that opens it, he doesn't really care about you. Maybe Leatherface...but he's basically an early form of Jason...and you don't need to Jasons in a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the sequels are more entertaining, but the original has more "scare" factor to it. I don't see how Pinhead and Chucky could really cross over with anyone. Well, I could see Chucky and either Dollman or the Demonic Toys. Leather and Jason had an interesting crossover in the 90s. Interesting covers for Buffy. Is this the "final final" issue, or just the final issue for the "season"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think comic book wise...yeah. They wouldn't translate well to film. It would be beyond Abbott and Costello Meet... on the ridiculous scale.

Well, in theory wouldn't that have to mean that if the slayer was alive (whether that's Buffy or someone else) that they would basically just be like every other normal human. I mean, if all magics and demons were gone, then in theory so would be the essence that gave her her power (because wasn't her power originated from demonic powers?).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if that will affect the fanbase any? Speaking of, the Justice Society episode, which was listed as a two-parter, is not being listed as a 2 hour episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chat

Well, "two hours" is only two hours worth of time slot. It's really only 1.5 hours of episode. Given that monumental story of the episode (the Justice Society), I think that it is what fans really want. They don't want to have to wait a full week to get closure to the story. I like the idea, because it makes you think that they'll do something really big since they have a steady stream of time. I also watched a clip from "Pandora", which the episode that will air next Friday and it looks really good. The clip is taken from a point in the future, where Clark has no powers under a red Sun and Zod has managed to give himself powers. The scene itself is a romantic one between Clark and Lois that ends rather hoTTTT.

That sucks you didn't like DMtH. I might pick it up later one and see for myself. I'm interested nonetheless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Libel

Sorry British chap, but I have carried myself in a peaceful matter. Have I drove a tank over your house? No. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC

Hey

I figured out it was you when I saw "Paul" and "SlayAlive" on the page! Excellent. Yeah I've been busy with uni stuff (groan), hence the contribs page not moving much. I know what you mean about Season Eight, it feels like Georges is phoning it in too which makes the whole thing feel so much cheaper.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Friday the 13th

I don't need to "see" other well-written articles. I've written them. Boxes like that are almost never used, and when they are it's extremely sparingly, for particularly notable quotations. This, however, is an exceptionally bad quote, from what is clearly a badly-edited source, in a very poorly written article.

Ordinarily I'd post about this on the article talk page, but in all my years at Wikipedia I've never seen a good editor so insistent about such blatantly bad content. Since it's completely indefensible, it's not really an issue for the article talk page; I have to assume there's something you find personally offensive about my removing it. So what is it about that particular sentence, amongst all other sentences that have ever been uttered about the film, that is so important that it simply must have its own separate mention? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt I was questioning your experience as an editor with my "see other articles" comment, it wasn't meant like that. Actually, I see quote boxes like that used quite a lot, especially on fiction articles (see FAs Jason Voorhees, The Stolen Earth, Smallville (season 1), and numerous others). Because it's often hard to find useable images for fiction articles due to copyright crap, using quote boxes is a good way to make the article more visually appealing, breaking up a solid wall of words and making it more digestible for the reader. They are useful for summarising entire sections or highlighting particularly relevant points.

I disagree that the content is "indefensible". Jason is the main character in the film, so obviously his casting is going to be notable in the cast section. The quote briefly highlights the concerns that the casting directors had with Mears, and how he convinced them he was capable of playing the role. It's therefore highly relevant to the casting section, which is why it warrants mention over the casting of the other characters. The fact that Mears' doesn't speak with perfect grammar doesn't matter... it's a direct quote, he can word his statement how he chooses so long as it provides commentary on the article subject. I have no personal attachment to that particular quote, it's you who seems so offended by Mears' wordchoice. I reverted you because "bad grammar" isn't a valid reason to remove direct quotes.

Frankly, you've not made a very convincing argument. Removing a direct quote for "bad grammar", accusing me of a personal agenda I don't have, and made sweeping claims that the article is "very poorly written" isn't very productive. If the article is so poorly written, why don't you specify the problems on the article talk page and offer advice on how to improve it, instead of complaining about a perfectly valid quote box? I'm sure Bignole (the primary editor of the page) would be happy to discuss your opinions.  Paul  730 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You win. I don't care enough about the article to argue about this. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kafziel, based on the articles that you typically work on (as seen in your contribs), I'd say that you're just not fully aware of how fiction related articles are written. The idea that Friday the 13th is "poorly written" is quite a stretch. To clarify, it's not perfect but there isn't a single article on Wikipedia that is for that matter. Secondly, fiction articles, especially films and television shows, are generally not written in the same tone as an article on a real life person, band, etc. Now, if you see something specifically wrong with the article, I implore you to bring it up on the talk page so that we can all look at it and make corrections if necessary. But, I would appreciate a bit more mature attitude from an administrator, instead of just labeling an article "poorly written" based on what appears to be simply because you're frustrated someone reverted your decision to remove a quote that, I agree with Paul, has relevance to the section regardless of Mears's ability to form a grammatically correct sentence.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually used to work on fiction articles quite often, but gave them up when I got tired of arguing with fanboys. I'm not going to start editing fiction again now. I happened to be passing by and saw the quote, which is quite obviously not an error on Mears's part, but a typo in the source material (the phrase "you are" switched to "are you") and decided to fix it. I didn't want to talk about it, I just wanted to fix it. But apparently the article belongs to you guys and I really can't be bothered arguing about it. So I take it all back. It's a delightful read, highly encyclopedic, and perfectly relevant to our readers' interests. Barnstars forthcoming. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So both myself and Bignole have been pretty civil and taken the time to defend the inclusion of the quote, and your only response is "can't be bothered" and sarcasm. I agree with Bignole, not very mature behaviour from an admin. Either argue your case or not, but lose the snide attitude.  Paul  730 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. There's no law against saying I can't be bothered. I work on things I enjoy, with editors I like, and that's that. It's the third law. I'm not going to apologize for not falling over myself in the rush to get to the talk page for "Friday the 13th (2009)", of all friggin' things. You want the text box - you got it. You want me to tell you how swell it is? Not going to happen. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who came to my talk page, and so far you've delivered nothing but a rude and dismissive attitude. You don't have to care about the article or subject, but show a bit of respect to those that do.  Paul  730 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who wanted to talk. I just wanted to improve the encyclopedia (which, contrary to popular belief, does not require my seeking prior permission on a talk page).

Derek Mears has given an absurd amount of interviews to anyone who would listen—from Fangoria to Joe Schmo living in his mother's basement—and I'm pretty sure you could find a better quote if you were so inclined. But it's easier for you to revert me out of hand and then make me out to be the asshole, so that's fine. Let's stick with that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said you should seek prior permission, I contested your edit and suggested you discuss it on the talk page if you felt strongly about it. Instead, you came to my talk page throwing vague criticisms at the article in general, been sarcastic and dismissive, and refused to make constructive comments because it's apparently not worth your time.

How did I "revert you out of hand"? I explained myself in the edit summary and made a reasonable argument on my talk page. I even apologised for accidently offending you. Why should I watch quietly as you remove valid content from the article? I get that you dislike the quote, but myself and Bignole have defended it's inclusion and you've not made much of a counter argument. I don't feel the need to find a "better quote" because I think the current one does the job nicely (as explained above). If the grammar bothers you so much, we could alter it via square brackets to make it read more smoothly.  Paul  730 02:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, clearly I'm a bad person, so don't change the quote on my account. It's perfect. Fantastic. Compelling. Truly FA-level stuff. Certainly don't even glance at any of the 100,000+ google hits for "Derek Mears interview"; it's quite unlikely that you'll find anything even half as good. As I already said, waaaaaaaay back up there... you win. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see Admin's taking mature attitudes about these things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Doctormas

Merry Christmas to you too. Ah, as I put on a friend's wall, it's obvious: Martha and Mickey have been Masterified, but Jack is luckily off-world and Rose is in the parallel world and Midshipman Frame is off-world and an alien and Luke is more than human, etc. I thought it just lacked a certain cohesion, like it hadn't been through enough revisions. Perhaps I've been spoilt by the last batch of Dollhouse episodes ("Meet Jane Doe" through to the "The Attic") which rank among the man's best work ever.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. The worst thing I hate is when 12-year olds eagerly rush onto Wikipedia to write a 10,000 word plot summary rife with spelling errors, grammatical mishaps and poor formatting.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, naturally it wasn't that satisfying, but I love the Trickster as a villain. He's awesome. He'd be a good foe for the Doctor, but I suppose him having "rules" that Sarah Jane can beat him by puts them more on par with one another. I think having the Doctor there for the "who is the Trickster" chat and the stuff about the Pantheon of Discord is wonderful. I love hearing about pre-Universe / extra-dimensional villains, and the idea of there being these dozen or so god-like alien entities makes great potential for future villains. Perhaps Clare Kramer will guest star. I get really excited by silly things like that, like learning that Oblivion is in the same system as Arcateen V. Or the thing with the Banakaffalatta people. Or Clom, Clix, Raxacoricovarlonpatorius and Raxacoricofallapatorius (which is also a reference to that weird twin planets concept...). I haven't' seen the Willow one-shot, cos of Christmas eve being the release date and all. Have you seen the New Year's Day Doctor Who trailer?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like a big ellipsis of time and to see Jack and his new boyfriend Alonso together, angstlessly. I wouldn't mind someone referencing Children of Earth: seems like pretty big world history, to me. Too late now, as the human race is pretty much wiped out. Did you see Wilf piloting the space ship with the gun turret (Battle TARDIS??) in the Time War, in the trailer? I'd like him to be someone who was an ally to the Doctor, or his brother if he indeed is a Chameleon Arch Time Lord or som

ething like that.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC) OH, and Bilis had potential for a queery recurring Torchwood villain but I think one of the novels redeemed him and ended his character's potential. And Captain John could have been Jack's "Master", but again with the redemption. I always have this idea for a Torchwood villain: evil Jack from his missing Time Agent years, being paraded around time and space on evil missions and bumping into to 21st century Jack at some point.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Timey wimey! I love that fankwank. Actually I was a little amused early in part one, where the Ood explains how Christmas 2009 (the Victorian Christmas gets us back to the present!) is for some reason happening parallel with the 43rd century. And then there's the bizarre inter-cutting. But I guess we're to assume that because the Doctor and Master are so intimately linked, their timelines are in parrallel so the Doctor cannot cross them (easily).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Goddesses and Monsters" was underwhelming.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I didn't perceive the hidden meanings. (I saw that post in my SlayAlive lurking, lol.) But it just felt so cynically done -- drop an ambiguous phrase here, patter around, give an ambiguous ending -- in that typical Whedony way. Still, it's not as cheap as the way RTD likes to foreshadow (say a word once per episode in no particular context, retroactively make Oodspeak into prophecy...). It was just a bit thin and it didn't build much on what I'd already inferred from previous issues. Also, maybe I was just thrown by the Charmediness of it and the witch mythology becoming so organised. Meh.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. There should have been less of the time and space / bigger and bigger crap and more of the farewells etc. But it was effective! Smith's introduction was fine, but his weird face is weird. Martha/Mickey was spoiled by rumours going around a year ago about that scene, Jack/Alonso I guessed would happen and it was nice enough. He's recovering, evidently. Seems like RTD finally got to blow up the TARDIS and do the every-alien-species tribute he'd been waiting for (see his "The Stolen Earth" Shadow Proclamation concept sketch). I am glad he visited past Rose because crossing the parallel world AGAIN would've sucked; it was also a sort of "back to where it all began" moment. Fans are complaining (Facebook statuses) about poor continuity re: Jack's depression, Martha's fiance, Rassilon etc. but that's lazy of those fans. Clearly the writers are aware of that: we're meant to infer from the ellipsis. We don't know when the Martha scene is set, just that the Doctor visited at a time she could've died. I liked Donna's happy ending, even if it was sort of bittersweet. Tennant's last words sort of summed up the adoration that's projected towards Ten and people's sadness to see him go. Rassilon's glove: of resurrection gauntlet family of Time Lordwear? At the very least, it's the same prop.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Donna will just live and die a happyish, financially-comfortable life (perhaps with one-off appearances of the DoctorDonna in novels, future X Doctors specials, etc.). You can look at newspapers from a year ago and see that Claire Bloom was originally cast as the Doctor's mother, so that's probably who she is. Although they've left it open to be his wife or daughter or Romana if they choose to.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, AfterElton readers are angry about Jack/Alonso. I for one am glad we skipped along past the mourning -- mourning is boring to watch, and the bar scene shows Jack was miserable after potentially years had past from CoE. Ugh. I don't want Alonso in TW though, seeing as he's from the planet Sto and that's just a bit too Whoey for TW's tone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, same place: AfterElton. Personally, I voted NPH, who has the Whedonites' support. The whole #biggaybattle has gone viral.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't even seen. I'm going to have to buy it tomorrow though, now, mind. Must... remain... spoiler-free.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Spoiled myself. Didn't I guess this character already? Yay me. Anyway, good; I look forward to the story. WHat's MORE interesting is Scott Allie and Chris Ryall having a phone call to make sure Dark Horse and IDW continuities match up; the Angel ongoing is now quietly canon!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is! I worked up the Twilight article to include the real-world information, but I imagine most of it can be moved to Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)#Literature and to Twilight (Buffy comic) as the real-world notability comes from the aspects relating characterisation, promotion, the secrecy and the reveal itself.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If Twilight is Angel is carried off half as well as "____ is the Rossum Corp founder" in Dollhouse (oh, don't spoil it for yourself), I have full faith in Joss. Dollhouse is now week-to-week better than Firefly or (dare I say?) even Buffy. It would be wonderful though, if this was season five, and all the game-changing WTF moments were happening after five rather than two years of sly misdirection. It simply has not had the time to amass enough the deeper significance that Buffy' achieved, and what's more its bad start will haunt it forever. But, I imagine some good books will come out soon on the philosophy of/in Dollhouse.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays. Hope all is going well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...I've been busy with work so much that I haven't had time to do any real editing. I actually had to go in today because there was only one other staff on duty for the kids that I work with and we have to have 1 staff for every 6 kids (we had 8). So I had to provide support.

I still haven't watched season 2 of Terminator...though I really want to. I've actually been to the movies quite a bit in the past 2 months. I saw The Men Who Stare At Goats (overrated and not that good), The Blind Side (which was really good), and some others that I saw but don't remember (so they probably weren't all that great). lol. I finally saw Angels & Demons. That was good, but I felt like they changed too much from the book. I'm still waiting to watch The Gate and Warlock 1 and 2. I want to get The Gate II on DVD before I watch the other, and I'm just waiting for the right time to watch Warlock (namely when I can watch them back to back). I have a bunch of movies waiting for me to unopen (I still haven't opened any gifts) as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So, I got 976-EVIL, It's Alive (2008), I.Q., Courage Under Fire, When Harry Met Sally..., Fright Night, The Shining, the final season of The Dead Zone, the complete series of The Flash, plus my very own copy of the out of print Jason Takes Manhattan poster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh...the kids were largely annoying because they couldn't go home for Christmas, but no serious incidents happened.

So, Terminator is kind of like Firefly. You get a season of "we didn't realize we were going to be cancelled" episodes. Well, depending on the show, 22 episodes in one season can be good. Smallville could do maybe 15 - 18 a season and it would be a smoother running show (it'd largely remove fillers), but at the same time some fillers are good all by themselves (e.g., "Ryan"). I'm curious to see what happens in the second season, but I'm pissed because I know that it ends abruptly. Just like with The Dead Zone, I know they cancelled it before they could actually wrap up the main storyline. That's what pisses fans off the most, because the studio doesn't care enough about the fans to at least give the writers 1 or 2 episodes to either wrap up the series, or at least enough time ahead of cancellation so that they can do it naturally. That's a fear for Smallville, that they'll not tell the producers when they are going to end it, and a series that has been running for 10 years will just be cancelled out of the blue. That being said, I read that they were buying up additional lots for Smallville sets, which isn't something you'd typically do for a show you're going to end.

Doghouse wasn't released over here, and it isn't available on DVD here either. I guess I'll just have to wait on it...though if it's even remotely as good as SotD, then I'll probably get it.

I've never actually been a fan of the Kubrick movie. I've watched it a couple of times (years ago) and it's really slow paced for me and sometimes just puts me to sleep. I've always put off getting it for my SK film collection, but someone else bought it for me. Fright Night is a classic B-horror comedy. It's up there with My Best Friends a Vampire (which is one of my favorite vampire comedies).

Yeah, she bought me the poster....which I'm sure cost her quite a bit considering she bought one of the 1989 originals, as opposed to one of those reprints (difference of $150 compared to $30). So, I guess that means she loves me a lot considering that she looked for an original printing over a reprint. :D Now, if I can just get that original printing of the Halloween poster - the one with the blue "Rated-R" tag on it - then I'll be set.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the studio (thank you FOX, for another trip down cancellation lane) wasn't telling them anything. The season started strong in the ratings, but started dropping. The reality is, the ratings would have been great on the CW...lol. It's too bad Dawn at The CW is trying to make it a female only network - she might have picked it up. I think if the WB still existed, they might very well have picked it up considering Warner Bros. ties to the Terminator franchise.

The original series was very dry and sciency. Abrams made the film more enjoyable by making it more human and warm. If you watch any old ST film, watch The Wrath of Kahn and First Contact, they're the only ones worth watching. The "remake" is one of my favorite sci-fi films, because I loved how they filmed the space scenes. It just looked beautiful. I also appreciated the understanding of science when they had no sound when fighting in space.

Storm of the Century, Salem's Lot (the Rob Lowe version), The Mist, and The Green Mile are my favorites. I like a lot of the others, but those are my favorites. Dreamcatcher was awesome....till the end. Those horrible gelatin looking aliens killed the movie.

I always frame my posters. I bought a frame today, but when I unwrapped it I found that it was broken and unusable. So, I have to find a time to go back and get a replacement. Just to give you an idea about the Halloween poster. Here is one, that isn't even in mint condition. Check out the price on it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Like I said...I blame FOX. They mishandle so many shows. Even when a show performs poorly, when you've made it to a second season the least you can do is give the devoted fanbase some real closure.

Not a huge SK book fan, or films based on his books fan? I love both. If anything, you should give The Dark Tower series a try. They're really good.

To me, it's all about the collectableness in most cases. I have reprints, but it's usually because the originals are super hard to even find (e.g., an original Halloween or Friday the 13th poster). The Halloween poster is something I'll either never be able to get, or something that would be a Christmas gift many years in the future when we're more financially secure (i.e. that would be my "gift" for the whole Christmas). I can't wait to frame that "I Love NY" poster.

I do have all the Evil Dead posters. I have all the Friday the 13th posters (with the exception of an original Final Chapter. Finding an original--like the one on the Wiki page--is extremely hard. Every one I find isn't for sale), and all of the Nightmare on Elm Street posters. I also have a TCM poster and a Halloween poster (though, it's the one of Michael standing over the banister, and not the theatrical reprint).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is certain things that I do as collectables, and others I really don't care about. When I was buying VHS, it had to be original box cover art or I wouldn't but it. I have all the original F13 VHS tapes, along with about 250 other films. To me, certain posters I want originals of because it's the original that I adore, not just the image. It's the story behind it. In the case of F13 8, it's being able to say I own one of the original posters that was banned because of New York filing a lawsuit against Paramount.

I believe that the image you want is a poster you can buy. The bannister poster of Michael is set up like the Halloween theatrical poster, with the pumpkin image replaced by the banister image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CordeliaChaseBtVS.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CordeliaChaseBtVS.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Turbulence" and Torchwood on FOX

So, I just read "Turbulence" - wow can Joss write. Faith restored in Season Eight, for me. Also, what do you think of these American Torchwood rumours? Nathan Fillion as a Time Agent ftw.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What's up

I'm doing alright. Bouncing around from job to job apparently. LOL. I'm been trying to make more time on here for real edits (trying to get certain horror pages up to snuff and finish some old work), but I get distracted by more entertaining things...like Mass Effect 2. As for Nightmare, I enjoyed it. I think I enjoyed F13 more, because it's more of a fun horror movie with losts of laughs, but I felt that this was a pretty good remake of the original. Haley, IMO, was awesome as Freddy and any "one-liners" come across more sinister than comical (though, some of them you have to laugh at). I know you were apprehensive about the idea of making Krueger a potentially sympathetic monster, and creating doubt that he did anything to warrant being burned alive, but I think you'll find that the film does well with where it takes that aspect of his background. Haley does this wonderful thing with the glove when he's stalking the kids in the dreams; he like twitches the blades together really fast, like he's so eager to cut them that he cannot help his anxiousness. I think some of the acting from the kids was delivered a little deadpan at times, but overall it was pretty good. It's an interesting remake, as it's not "shot-for-shot" remake (ala Psycho), but it's like they took the generally story outline from the first film and just tweaked everything so it felt different, yet the same all at once. It's hard to explain. I feel sorry for the film, since Iron Man 2 is getting released next weekend...it's like the worst possible time to release Nightmare.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nancy's not a goth. That was a misconception on some people's part. Nancy is like a normal teenage girl...she has low self-esteem when it comes to others (since Katie Cassidy is super hot...who wouldn't have low self-esteem next to her). I find her to be a bit more realistic. She's more of an artsy type of person, who enjoys drawing and painting, and uses that as a means to cope with a lack of friends. That said, her "lack of friends" is also a major plot device that goes all the way back to when she was a child, and what her connection to the other major kids in the story are. Also, don't interpret my info to be that she is a social outcast. She isn't. All of the kids in the film talk to her, treat her fine, she just doesn't have that confidence in herself (at least not immediately), when it comes to friends. She is definitely not Heather Langenkamp....but I'm not sure that's a bad thing in this film. Personally, I find Rooney Mara's Nancy better than Scout's Laurie Strode.

Jesse is not sexually ambiguous in the film...though he is kind of a pussy when it comes to Freddy. I also find that to be a bit more realistic. Men are not all macho assholes that cannot be scared. Also, I think Thomas Dekkar is sexually ambiguous because he's a rock star (or wanna be). That emo/sexually ambiguous look he has seems to stem from the look of his rock band.

I haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet...it doesn't come out here until tomorrow. I don't know when I'll see it...I might not see it tomorrow because I'm sure everyone will be seeing it tomorrow. BTW, Jason's going to be featured on the main page on May 9 (30 year anniversary).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd probably like Nancy. She's definitely still got that innocent quality to her (which Scout lacked in RZH). She's an interesting character, but the reality is that almost all of the teens have more to do in this film than any of the others did in the original. Kris (aka Tina) is a beefed up role, and Quentin (aka Glenn) is also beefed up. It's also more than just Nancy figuring everything out. Just about each one of them learn some separate piece of info about Krueger, or themselves, which helps them to piece it all together later.

So, you think Dekker is gay, but that he's intentionally hiding it? I wonder why? The acceptance of gay actors has grown a lot. I mean, look at T.R. Knight from Grey's Anatomy. At the same time, look at Jared Leto. If you've ever seen a music video for his band 30 Seconds to Mars, you'd say he kind has that same Dekker look. What is setting off your gaydar about Dekker?

I'm not real happy about Evans as Captain America. I don't know...I'm the same way about Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. Both actors are extremely funny, and don't come across as the right fit for their roles (as both characters are extremely serious). Plus, I don't like the idea of being associated with two major Marvel characters at the same time. At least Reynolds is switching universes (though I think he would have made a better Flash than Green Lantern). Although I think he's being over capitalized right now with so many films, I believe that Sam Worthington would have made a good Captain America (if he could get the American accent down better than he did in Terminator Salvation).

BTW, Smallville season nine is coming to a close and it's really getting exciting. This season is one of the best ones for awhile. Also, I don't know if you've read these or not because I know you're not a DC fan, but I recently read The Dark Knight Returns and The Dark Knight Strikes Again by Frank Miller. I really didn't like them. Now only did the artwork suck ass, but I hated the way Miller characterized Superman in the two series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the deaths are cartoony, at least they weren't like turning a kid into a comic book and shredding him like paper. Most of the deaths are pretty straight forward deaths, because the point of them is to make it appear as though it is something that could happen to them in the real world and thus not alert the parents to his presence. I think the stuff you'll like is the dream sequences themselves, because they are pretty well done. They do a good job of slipping the characters in and out of reality to the point that you sometimes suspect their in a dream when they aren't, and vice versa. I also enjoy how they explain some of the true side-effects of not going to sleep for 72 to 96 hours, and what that actually does to your body and your mind. In the original film, and the others...people were staying awake for a week at a time and all you'd see is them start to doze off.

He probably saw him in Village of the Damned, that's probably his biggest role as a child actor. The rest of the stuff you'd barely even notice him. I thought the crap about playing a gay character in Heroes was the work of his agent, who was saying it would type case him as a gay character actor and hurt his film career...or some shit like that. I mean, because turning John Conner into an emo-pseudosexual probably wasn't the forward direction he would need to go in order to quell homosexual rumors. I mean...it's idiotic. Look at Eric McCormack. He did Will & Grace for almost a decade, and he's straight.

Even Evans's serious stuff he's still jokey. It's hard to break that kind of stuff because you can tell it's who he is as a person. Reynold's is the same way. He can be serious, but there are still hints of comic relief in him.

The costume is working out well. He pulls it off. I think it'll change by next season though, as it's been stated that some people are supposed to voice their issues with the color choice he uses. Early in the season we got to see the glasses, as Clark "confessed" (really to throw her off the trail of his secret) that the thing he's been hiding for so long is that he's near-sighted. Supposedly, we're supposed to see the glasses again by the end of the season (there's only 2 episodes left..lol), and I'm hoping that it dovetails into continued use next season.

Oh, The Long Halloween is on my list. I think that's a Jeph Loeb comic. I'm currently reading Batman: Hush right now, and it's pretty good. The artwork is good as well. The problem I had with Miller is that not only is Batman kind of pompous (I mean, in comparing himself to the other superheroes), but he wrote Superman to be this pussy-ass, sell out who works for Lex Luthor and Brainiac. He had Batman, who is like 60 going on 70, kicking Superman's ass constantly. He gave no credit whatsoever to Superman's abilities, and often wrote him gingerly accepting his fate as the U.S. lapdog. It was annoying. At least in Hush, when Loeb writes in a Batman/Superman fight (as Superman was under the influence of Poison Ivy's kryptonite enhanced love toxin), he has Batman admit that if Superman wasn't the Boy Scout that he is, and so against killing a human being, that he could easily kill Batman if he chose to, even when Batman was wearing a kryptonite ring.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Break

The wall scene and the ending scene with Nancy's mom were the only CGI elements that I didn't really care for...that I felt were too obviously CGI. The rest were fine. What did you think of Freddy's make-up and the CGI that was constantly applied to his face? I felt like that probably spent all of the money on his face and couldn't afford anything better for the rest of the film.

I can see what you're saying about this Nancy and her being boring. Although that's not exciting, I value realism over "nothing seems to bother us" teens of the 1980s. To me, this film did better at showing how thus stuff would really psychologically affect the teenagers. IMO, there wasn't a build up to the original characters' state of mind. They were already having the dreams, but it didn't really seem to bother them. No one really thought anything of it until Glen died, and by then Nancy was the only one left or even affected. At least in this one, you can see it affecting everyone. Each of the teens figures out that they shouldn't go to sleep. I like that better than "oh...I'm going to sleep now...hey what's going on...who are you...death." This film also does better with connecting everyone to Freddy, whereas in the other it seemed to be a loose connection through their parents. What did you think of Jesse? Is he still quasi-gay in your impression?

P.S. The Smallville finale was fucking awesome. You get a flash forward three years at the beginning to see that Perry White is the Editor on the DP, Lois is a star reporter, Lois and Clark are together (and possibly married since she appears to have a ring on her finger), and Clark is wearing the classic costume and saving people as Superman (though, you only get brief CGI glimpses of the suit). Plus, Martha gives Clark that actual suit as a gift (in real time), the fight with Zod was 10 times better than the fight with Doomsday, plus the added benefit of a cameo by Granny Goodness and a signal for Darkseid in season ten.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I loved his new makeup. It's not Robert Englund, which is probably good. The worst thing they could have done was make him look like Englund, because it wouldn't have been Englund acting. With exception being the burning scene, I thought the CGI on his face looked real good. It probably helped that they got the guys that created Two-Face's face in The Dark Knight.

My problem is that when shit happened in their dreams they wrote it off. Having a recurring nightmare at that age isn't normal and can do a lot of psychological effects on you. The 80s teens didn't seem phased by bad dreams like the new age teens were. Sleep deprivation can do a lot, and having recurring nightmares that wake you up repeatedly in the night can affect you. The 80s teens seemed like nothing was going on. Tina maybe, but Rod was in just as much denial. That said, none of them were afraid to go to sleep. Tina was afraid to go to sleep alone, but not to actually go to bed. If the dreams truly bothered you then you'd try to stay awake as much as possible (which, Nancy only did once all her friends were dead). The micro-naps were fake (though an awesome concept and probably based in some reality...though I think you wouldn't dream while still awake...just fall asleep at random times).

Yeah, the remake had a lot of good moments and I hope they get a sequel just so I can see Jackie continue the character at least once more. I also got the vibe that Jesse was more middle (or uppper) class, and that he attempted to be more badass than he was. He also did not seem to be in the same league as Kris. I also liked the idea of Freddy pointing out his brain would still be active for 6 minutes after death, and I thought it was a great one-liner when he goes "We got 5 minutes left" (or whatever it was). That was kind of chilling--in a good way. The same is true for the bit where he tells Nancy that he intentionally left her for last so that she'd stay awake long enough that she's slip into a coma when she finally fell asleep and thus be his forever. It gives a whole new meaning to "I'm your boyfriend now".

Well, Smallville will probably end next year so here's hoping that they do something awesome in season ten. I'm hoping they don't abandon the suit Martha gave him for the entire year. I mean....come on. I say, go all out in season ten, be damned for anything else. Let him wear the suit and learn to fly, but save the announcement of "Superman" till the final episode as some attribution for something grand that he does. Sorry Buffy seems to be declining. Hopefully it'll all make sense for you in the end. BTW....is Buffy sticking her hand into Angel/Twilight's boxers? That's kind of graphic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Long time

Hey. I haven't read any Buffy in ages (Oxford keeping me occupied... / mental health problems), but I wanted to check in and see how things are. Spoilerlessly: Buffy, good? Also, I just noticed some new academic articles, the shiniest being "Cordelia Chase as Failed Feminist Gesture", "Anya as Feminist Model of Positive Female Sexuality" (CANNOT WAIT TO WRITE THIS UP), ""Lez-faux": How Buffy Season Eight Navigates the Politics of Female Heteroflexibility" (to go into the Buffy, Satsu and "Wolves at the Gate" articles), "Andrew and the Homoerotics of Evil". All but the first of them are in Sexual Rhetoric in the Works of Joss Whedon: New Essays ed. Erin B. Waggoner (2010). I think I'm reading just about anything to avoid doing my coursework (worth 1/8th of my final degree), which I chose to do on atheist/secular rhetoric (which is actually quite fun; lots of 18th century stuff to make it a bit flavoursome). For example, I wrote up Imperial Bedrooms from scratch when I should have been reading. Wikipedia is the thing that will both for a time save and ultimately doom my degree. And there are loads of Dollhouse articles to chuck in there now. WOO. Say something.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarify for me that I'm not going mad. The skirmish with TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) (his talk page) seems completely ridiculous and unnecessary. Wanton hostility. And also, could you spare two minutes to weigh in on [[Talk:Donna Noble#Don't want to cause a massive argument [Donna's race]|whether Donna's race should be listed in the infobox]] and whether Sea Devils and Silurians should be merged into one article. In the Donna case, Treasury Tag is accusing me of "censoring" the truth about her 'current' species (like, what?!?) because I feel that awkwardly phrased or complicated facts, as well as OR etc., do not belong in an infobox. I respect TreasuryTag as an editor, but feel more than a bit bullied by his consistently aggressive attitude towards me, which I don't invite and consistently try to cool down.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Paul. I thought I had recovered. Bryan Lynch would mock me if he saw me now. I am SOOOO excited, beside myself with excitement, really, for the Charmed continuation comic books.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 08:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I liked it! Well, there were uneven episodes, but the whole series was essentially more of what made Doctor Who great these past couple years. I liked the very Moffaty plot, I love River Song (even if she is just Moffat's RTD-untouched-gets-to-get-with-the-Doctor Jack Harkness) and I didn't mind the remembering/existing fallacy. I also liked that Moffat at once made it a proper resolution, open ended, happy, and sad, without "Here's an ending... WHAT!? What?!" The other day I realised that the two TV shows I would most like to write for as a beginner are Sarah Jane and probably (even though I saw one episode and hated it) Merlin. Would be totally fun.20:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I lurk on SlayAlive. You're always on there, with your Anole avatar. Last I heard, Spike would be guest starring the "red-haired" mystery character from Buffy (I suppose because those 2 appearances on Angel) make her rights' usable. I love the stuff Lynch writes, and I like the sound of the new Watcher in Angel, but I ... well, meh.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read Charmed yet but I did order #1 Cover A off of eBay to try it. (TFAW: too expensive.) I think you might being a bit harsh on Season Eight. Have you seen this interview with Scott Allie? Most interesting bits are his attempts at storyline direction for Lynch's IDW Spike series, and the promise of concurrent character ongoings rather than another "Predators and Prey" arc (which I think was the point when some people lost faith). Faith would work. Willow COULD work. Satsu might need a supporting cast of familiar characters. Me? I wanna see Drew Goddard write Andrew (if he lives).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I have to bear in mind that Season Eight has been very experimental. It was trying to do a "TV episode format", which meant "four months+ per episode". I think After the Fall was a very much comic-book format and it worked. I think Buffy will take that format for Season Nine (tell it over one or two years) and then have one spin-off book running in tandem for miniseries, maybe a Faith ongoing but that's a lot of plot and room for disaster. I wouldn't mind reading two months of Faith, a month of Spike, or three months of Willow with an Andrew or Satsu back-up.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think he justified it well, stuff about "to get that time and place explored, this was the character" (paraphrasing). Can you look at Sceptre's Russell T Davies FAC? I promised I'd review but he credited me in the lead (I did nothing!) so I think it wouldn't work. My take on reading is that it's very good, comprehensive.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Spike

The Lynch series has got me really excited. I want some advice / help with rewriting the Spike/Television appearances thing. It's actually well-written, just not Wiki friendly. Should I convert it the usual way tracing "School Hard"-"Not Fade Away" or is there an argument for leaving some sort of backstory section there?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave the "Literature" section a "good enough for now" rewrite and added an image! These kind of edits are gonna kill me, though. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Give User:Zythe/Spike#Television a brief once-over before I commit it to the main page, maybe?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AAAH, AAAAH, AAAAH!!!! Weigh in, weigh in.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Angel switching to Dark Horse under the 'Season Nine' banner? ALSO: Scott Allie, now explicitly saying that the Buffyverse is going to be Dark Horse's Marvel Universe. I wonder if IDW are going to go the Benny Summerfield route and do a Laura Kay Weathermill spin-off, or something so, given the loss of the license? Also, do you have a proper Torchwood Magazine source for this tidbit? (http://tardisspoilers.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-brand-new-torchwood-character.html) Digital Spy etc haven't seized on it yet.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay so I read Last Gleaming, Part I and it was amazing. Apart from some cringey lines from Buffy to Angel (which, given her 'playing' Angel might have read better being spoken by SMG) I thought it was really fun. Great visuals, particularly the scene with the plane in the air over the dog. So cinematic. Jossian; reminds me of the directorship in "Storyteller" with the axe and things. And the Spike time travel: excellent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Joss is just writing to have a little bit of fun and explore the comic medium with his own characters, his own Marvel-ish universe. I think if we're judging it in terms of madcap adventures, it's pretty funky in a good way. I think it will also hold together if you analyse it after the fact. I think part of the pang of disappointment we both sometimes share is how the TV series is something we've watched and overanalysed and extracted the academic goodness from. The comic book is not intending to operate on that level, at least not all of the time. I think partially it's Joss wanting to indulge in wacky storylines. (I'm fairly sure the bugs are just demons btw. And I had assumed it was time travel -- Spike's look of recognition, realising that Big Ben's going to crash because it's an event he's already witnessed. Or am I meant to take it as an ellipsis, Spike landing in London in the ship and going on his Twilight learnamarole and then setting off on the ship pre-"Twilight, part V"?) I think Buffy's Bella-ishness is the weakest part of the writing, yeah. Spike's "got a ship" was a pretty damning pun.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was definitely an "Aliens of London" reference, yeah. Also, hooray for Espenson on Torchwood. I cannot wait.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm falling in love with Marvel again via X-Factor; I just rewrote part of the Rictor article. In the process I discovered that Peter David is 1) basing Shatterstar on Captain Jack Harkness and 2) using the Ianto Jones is dead ohnoes debacle as a point of reference for how to handle the relationship. How squee? What I LOVE is how in 209, as a meta point, Shatterstar is impersonating Captain Jack Sparrow, giving Madrox the opportunity to say "Yo! Captain Jack!... No buts, butts are for horses... or you know, something like that." Squee squee squee. Bisexual men didn't even exist in comics, prior. Also, am I to take it that Rictor is GAY now? Or just gay-"umbrella term"-gay? Didn't see PAD writing it that way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Buffy

How's it going? You haven't been around Wiki in awhile, there is currently a resurgence in wanting to add "Anne" to the Buffy article. Wanted to know if you wanted to put in your opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think most specialized infoboxes are being traded in for the generic one because too many started popping up. Glad you're doing well though. Yeah, I've been so busy lately that I rarely do any real editing. It's either clean-ups or stupid debates like the one you just put your two cent in. I am on Facebook. Use the "email me" feature on my user page (In the "About Me" section) to send me a link to your profile (this way no one gets your personal info here, or my personal info on here). My job situation is going well. I started doing in-home therapy and I'm working toward my professional's license. I've been meaning to see Predators, as I'm a big fan of both it and the Alien series. I liked both the AvP films. I fel the first was better written, but the second was more keeping in tone with the original series (both Predator and Alien). I haven't seen TS3, but I did like the originals. True Blood is on my list of next to get. The lady and I just finished the fourth season of Supernatural (love it), and we're waiting on season five to come out in September. Plus, season ten of Smallville is looking really awesome so far. What's new with you?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I already sent the request. I don't judge drunkiness. It's too much fun to see, and if you judge you're less likely to see it again. I enjoy laughing at others. ;D Yeah, I'm anticipating starting it, but I have to get my finances under control first. I have limited my movie/tv buying lately because I've been playing catch up with my bills since I just started working full time again. Speaking of shows, have you caught up on Smallville yet, or do you still have unopened DVDs?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you gotta finish up on Smallville. Season eight alone is worth getting to, and then season nine was just awesome. BTW, Geoff Johns will be writing an episode for Booster Gold and Blue Beetle. I still have to pick up Angel and start that series. BTW, I heard that they are going to release Buffy: Season Eight on DVD, as a moving comic book. Something you plan to get?

I'm annoyed that they recast Bruce Banner, especially since they are trading up Edward Norton for Mark Ruffalo. I mean, seriously? You might as well go back to Eric Bana. I think it's looking good overall, but I'm just annoyed by the recasting thing. I am liking what I'm seeing from Thor and Captian America (though, still not on the Chris Evans bandwagon yet). Like the Green Lantern costume, with the exception to the mask. It looks like crap on Reynolds. What are your thoughts on the Spider-Man reboot, and the new actor that is going to play Peter? I know you felt that the first three films didn't capture the quarky nature of Peter enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone who watches every episode of Smallville, I gotta disagree with the above: Season Nine isn't very good, nor is Season Eight.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You know nothing :P. Season nine was great. Better than season eight and seven and six.

Wasn't that the stipulation for me buying Buffy? I finished that series.If the motion comic is already out then you can put her back in. I was reading the article for it and got the impression that it wasn't even ready for distribution yet.

Pay Norton what he wants, he's an accomplished actor and knows how to handle his lines. Mark Ruffalo....that's a different story. Bruce needs to be convincingly sympathetic. Norton did that better than Bana. As for the new Spidey...I hope he trims his eyebrows, because the unibrow already bothers me. I'm asking for one thing at this moment, and that's not to get rid of the organic webbing. I hate the idea of Peter creating his own webbing and a shooter for it. Do you realize how smart you'd have to be to pull that off...and he's still just shooting pictures for the Daily Bugle??? Riiight. The organize webbing seemed to fit better, as why would he have strength, speed, agility, and stickiness and not have that one gift from a spider.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Renner I like. It was in 28 Weeks Later and SWAT. He's fun to watch and he typically plays an asshole...which should fit the role for him.

Organize over shooters is the way to go. It seems more natural for the character, and more "realistic". I mean, as far as the idea of being genetically enhanced by a spider bite goes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm famous?

I must be missing something. The last bullet in "Film" is about Iron Man. Am I not in the right place? I'm looking forward to Thor and Captain America. X-Men First Class is looking better with each trailer so it's growing on me. Green Lantern...I'm still pissed with Reynold's casting (I think he would have been a better Kyle Rayner, it would have made for a more natural role for him because Hal has traditionally been a very serious, non-nonsens character). I'm also worried about the CGI. The trailers have left me feeling like they went cheap on them, as there are a lot of really obvious CGI animations. I mean, the mask looks absolutely horrible. I don't know what they are doing with the Superman film. Henry Cavill better buff up and have a good Kansasian accent is all I'm saying. I'm not sure I like Amy Adams as Lois Lane. I love her, but she's always in timid roles and Lois needs to be a strong woman. I'm not sure if I buy that from her (though, I didn't see Fighter, and I hear that is a strong woman role and she is awesome in it). I'm also confused by the storyline. I cannot tell if it's a full reboot, or what. I've heard rumors that it just starts with the world already knowing, and then there are these "leaked" synopses that say it's the whole history like the original, but just a new twist. I don't know. I know that if it's too much like Donner's, people will hate it because they adore Donner's film. So, I'm still curious about that. I guess once filming actually starts and we know more then I'll have a better feel. I'm also hoping they have a decent suit. As much as I hate the fact that Smallville is reusing the Superman Returns suit, they have made some changes to it (like first and foremost replacing that hideous rubber cape with an actual cloth cape).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Strike that bit about not finding it. For some reason, when I first went in that section it didn't show the rest of the bullets. It just showed it to me today and I see that a "stubborn Wiki admin" was listed. I know who wrote that bit as well, because there has been only one unregular editor to the page who persistantly refers to me as an "admin". LMAO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Rick Grimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cabin in the Woods

I'll probably eventually see it, but I don't know if I'll see it the theaters. We'll see. It's probably a good date movie. I'm actually looking forward to The Avengers, because it's looking good so far. It's good to see Joss getting some theatrical opportunities, considering most of his TV ventures outside of Buffy have been falling on dead ears (not saying they are bad shows, because you know how much I love Firefly, but no one is watching them). So, what's new with you? It appears that Smallville is getting the Buffy treatment, and having their season 11 put into comic book form. Did you ever get past season 5? What are your thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

When is the last time that a "horror" movie was actually scary? As long as it's entertaining, it's fine. Plus, it doesn't look scary in the trailers. You'd think that if they were going to retitle it overseas, they would go with "Avengers Initiative", since that's what they call themselves in the film. Oh, I still think that Iron Man is going to have a hard time fitting in with a Demi-God and a Gamma-infused monster, but that doesn't mean that it won't be entertaining. I mean, you cannot ground one character in full "reality" and then incorporate mystical characters without it coming off a bit hokey. I mean, I could see Cap and Iron Man meshing without a problem. I cannot wait for The Dark Knight Rises. Spider-Man is looking better, but I still don't appreciate the idea of them rebooting the franchise so soon. It wasn't even cold yet and they started over. I would understand if they were trying to tie Spider-Man into the other Marvel films universes, but they aren't because Sony still owns the property. It looks like it will be a good comic book movie, but I feel like it won't have the heart and soul of the Sam Raimi films (I know you didn't like a lot of the changes they made to the character, but the stories were good...at least the first 2).

Smallville Season 11 is being written by Bryan Miller, who wrote some episodes for the series. He wrote a lot in season 10, but had his first gig in season 8 ("Committed", which was a good episode). You didn't say if you had watched anymore. Given up on it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

People that think horror is scary are probably afraid of just about anything. I mean, I like the Paranormal movies, and I see how they can be very suspenseful (or "scary" for the laymens...lol). I cannot think of the last film I saw that actually "scared" me. I'm too de-sensitized I guess. I still enjoy them, and love movies like The Descent for taking something that would have been an overused, silly idea and turning it into something bigger (metaphorically).

I still think that Iron Man doesn't fit in as well, even though they have been tying him in well with the inclusion of Nick Fury and Blackwidow in his films. I wish they had simply kept Edward Norton for Bruce Banner. I really liked him in The Incredible Hulk. I'm kind of getting tired of the constant recasting for that character, like somehow it was the actor that caused audiences not to flock to see a film about a hulking monster that is pretty much all CGI. As for Spidey, I don't think that either one of them particularly looks anything like the comic book Peter Parker. I think that Garfield's body shape is a bit more condusive to being Spider-Man than Maguire, but I enjoyed Maguire in the role just fine.

The art is by Pere Perez, who is doing a lot of the new DC Comics artwork. Here is the cover artwork for the first 3 issues issue 1, issue 2, and issue 3. Here is some panel artwork as well. I am going to wait. I prefer to read comics in trade form. I don't have the patience to go try and convince some comic story guy to order me one, or order it online for a $1 a pop. I'll wait. Yes, the later seasons are good. I mean, I enjoy them all to an extent, but the first half of season 8, and all of season 9 and 10 just destroy seasons 6 and 7. You should get back into them. I just rewatched all of them when season 10 came out on DVD. Took me a few months to do it, but I got through all 10 seasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Paul730/Sandbox 5

User:Paul730/Sandbox 5, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paul730/Sandbox 5 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Paul730/Sandbox 5 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Paul730/Buffy Summers

User:Paul730/Buffy Summers, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Paul730/Buffy Summers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Paul730/Buffy Summers during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LaurieStrode.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LaurieStrode.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

File:LaurieStrode.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LaurieStrode.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LaurieStrode.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LaurieStrode.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RfD about Absalom (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Hello, Paul730. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Absalom (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

e^πi (talk | contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Angel (1999 TV series)

Template:Angel (1999 TV series) has been nominated for merging with Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been nominated for merging with Template:Angel (1999 TV series). You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)