User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 8

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

I wasn't trying to promote anything...I was merely linking pictures of the premiere event as covered by Disney fan sites... (Bullfrog117 23:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

3rr

Alientraveller, I was about to warn 66.168.151.138 regarding 3RR on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian before you did so, but be aware that you too are in danger of falling foul of that rule. The matter over which you are both warring is exceptionally trivial; please use the talk page to discuss the matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

TSM

I don't see why not, although, may I? Quite sad, but I've never had more than two GA nominations at once! Gran² 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Man I'm sad. Anyway, nommed. Judging by just how useful the season boxsets have been, the movie DVD should be brilliant, a long wait though. Gran² 19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have broken WP:3RR, I shall be reporting this to Wikipedia administrators. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

X-Men

Meh, apologies... I was observing your contributions and Bignole's contributions and for some reason went to fix the "dissapointed" typo. Just got back from the beach yesterday, and I'm not in the best of mind. Sorry! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the Variety headline for Thor mentioned that "[Vaughn] was attached to direct X-Men 3 before bowing out for personal reasons." At X-Men film series, it is already mentioned that he left due to the rushed production schedule. Should this be replaced with what's said at the headline? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark

I'm not sure what you mean by Raiders of the Lost Ark not being highly rated by critics when it was released, all the reviews from popular magazines and critics I've seen said the movie was great. If you found some notable negative reviews from 1981, by all means quote and add them to the article for a neutral point of view. IndyFan644 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I found her review (http://www.geocities.com/paulinekaelreviews/r1.html) indeed, she hated it. :-) I'll add that to the article. IndyFan644 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I got a different quote from a reliable magazine, instead. IndyFan644 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy article as GAC

Hey, it looks like you nominated the article for GA. Thanks! I've been hard at work on it for a while. I wanted to augment the early career stuff before nominating it, but this is great. It will be good to get feedback, and I've never been through the process before, so it should be interesting. --Melty girl 17:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy = GA! Thanks again for the nomination. I made some nice enhancements while waiting for review, and the article was also improved via the GA evaluation process. --Melty girl 06:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bond 23

Ok, I'll see about doing that instead. I know it's fairly certain for the film to take place, but the stubby nature of the article for some time is going to be a more obvious target of rumors and speculation. I know Spider-Man 4 has gotten its share, but I think it was a bit worse when the article existed on its own, with a big list of "rumored" casting and plot information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Schindler's List

I noticed your sandbox work, and I was wondering if I could help you by putting together a Critical analysis section; a film like this would undoubtedly have some major academic studies (found a few in a preliminary Google Scholar search already). Let me know, and I'll be glad to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's cool; don't stress yourself out too much, though! Wikipedia's not going anywhere. I know the feeling myself, as I have little projects all over the place (feeling like I'm gonna focus on Watchmen now, though). I've had crazy notions of either getting all the Top-class Film articles to FA status for the long run, or just see if I can get a film from each genre (comedy, drama, sci-fi, etc) to FA status to be pretty well-rounded. You'll lock in on something, I'm sure. I'm off work today 'cause last night's storm knocked out the power at the workplace, so I'm not sure if I want to edit all day or not. Could get a lot done, potentially. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work. You can flesh out the actors' backgrounds in a prose Casting section if necessary. That's why I chose that method on Fight Club -- there were really just the big three. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll compile a list of books and journals, and I'll see if I can save copies of the latter to write up any academic studies pertaining to the film. Sorry about the belated response; didn't get much editing done today. (Tried to watch Stalker, but the film's so slow, even for this sci-fi sucker... second time I've fallen asleep when watching it.) Anyway, I'll see what I can provide. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In a sense. I've uploaded the files onto my personal university server (since I'm at work), so I can access them anytime. They can either make their way to you, or I can write it up myself. I'm just scouring what's available from the two reference links in your sandbox now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't sure, but after your message inquiring about the List resources, I e-mailed the ZIP file to you. (I failed to mail it before because the size was too big and only the Eva Green ZIP file made it through.) You should have it now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that academic studies necessarily have to do with the quality of the film. That's what the Critical reaction section is for, IMO. It's more about how it represents a certain aspect to the public eye, in this case how the Holocaust is shown to American audiences. Fight Club is its own fascinating can of worms with lots of coverage about masculinity, independence, etc. I'm hoping that once I finish the Interpretations subpage, I can write a summary/link in the film article and finally, finally put it up for the FAC process. It's been far too long. :-P As for Road to Perdition, you're welcome to use its structure. I've been thinking of how to define this whole thematic deal -- sometimes the director will have specific themes in mind, then there are unintended themes. I think if there is enough content on both sides (how it was intended and how it was instead perceived), then there should be two sections, like what I plan for Fight Club. In films that may not be as thematically representative, though, both intended and unintended themes could go under one section, with the wording to explain the perspective (from the director or from an independent school of thought). Road to Perdition does not seem to have been addressed thematically -- maybe everyone's in agreement and understanding with what Mendes was trying to do. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Road to Perdition has a ridiculously deep commentary about how Mendes put the film together, so the Themes section is incomplete in that regard. I need to sit down and write it all up to incorporate. There's fascinating insights like a certain shot of the father and son in the car where the bar between the windshield and the passenger window is shot to be placed between the two to indicate how separate they are. I'm thinking about doing American Beauty next; maybe evne go ahead with Jarhead. Ah, so much to do here on Wikipedia! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Warcraft Film Article

The Warcraft Film Article was not marked for deletion or anything. The article itself was deleted without warning. The Future Warcraft Movie Article itself, Had a budget, had Distributors and a predicted released date. Also The Future Movie has Sourceable articles that has not been posted in the main article yet. If You consider this article as an invalid article then I suggest you report Neon Genesis Evangelion (live-action movie) for deletion also for also for not having a director, no stars, no release date and etc for that article TOO is about mostly speculation. Or You can always delete it yourself without a mark for deletion tag. --Mithos90 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I worked with the editor on Cloverfield, so I've responded to him with a detailed explanation of WP:NF. On another note, I'm dealing with the agent of a rapper who has a short cameo in American Gangster and is trying to add content to promote him. Wikipedia really is freakin' unique, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Source

Thanks. Whilst I was reading it really made me think "this needs to be in the Themes section" even though its basically a review comparing it will the old days. So I need to think about it, but I'll probably but it in the reception section, for now anyway. Gran² 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Memento

Thanks for the encouragement. Actually, I am planning to do an "Analysis and Themes" section; the making-of book is a gold mine of critical response and theme discussion, although there are plenty of other sources too. Actually, I'm planning on skipping GAC; to be honest, I don't think much of the project, but I will make a peer review before I put it up for FAC. I'm taking a nice little 3-day weekend vacation now though, so work will have to be done when I get back. Thanks again, man.--Dark Kubrick 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating it in the first place. FAC should be soon!--Dark Kubrick 00:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg

Would you object much to merging Lincoln (film) and Interstellar (film) to Steven Spielberg? Production on both films are quite a long way off, and there's barely been any development regarding either of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've set up a sort of agenda regarding WP:NF at User:Erik/Clean-up. I just merged Metal Gear Solid (film) (which was a weak case for an article if I ever saw one), and I plan to approach other articles that would not be as controversial to merge. The Hobbit (2009 film) definitely needs addressing; the article purports a release date for December 2009, which is actually when the rights expire. I'll need to give Halo (film) a similar treatment as well. I'll probably overlook a few like The Lovely Bones (film), since they seem pretty close. Just want to cover the more distant projects, basically. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Bourne Ultimatum

Can you revert the incredibly bad plot again? It seems that one user is using three different IP addresses. I've already hit my revert limit for today. ColdFusion650 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Pilot (Friends) GA

That was fast! Thanks for reviewing. =o Brad 16:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Voldemort Page

Than edit what you must! This is the proper format for the article. Try to summerize it as possible. User talk:Hpfan1 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aguirre

Thanks for thinking the Aguirre, the Wrath of God article is good enough at this time to be nominated for Good Article status. I've been working on this article for quite some time. I think I've improved it considerably from its previous stub size. I appreciate the encouragement. I think the article needs some expansion -- particularly "Legacy" and "Historical Accuracy" sections -- but if you like what you see right now maybe others will agree that it should be promoted to GA. We'll see. Thanks again.-Hal Raglan 14:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Why did you remove the section I started on the production blog? If stuff like that on upcomming movies isn't right, then you have a lot of work to do, starting with deleting at least the "Production" section (if not the entire article), as well as numerous other articles. The production blog is no more news site-ish than the cast. I just don't see how this was justified. Microbyte 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not notable, only the information they supply. Alientraveller 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule stating this? (I couldn't find one) Also, this isn't a traditional blog. It's something done by the filmmakers, and so in a way, I was recording what the crew has been doing for the film, not just a blog at joeshmoe.blogspot.com. (BTW, it'd be easier to discuss either on your talkpage or mine, not both. Thanks!) Microbyte 14:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you wonder whether it's notable Prince Caspian as a major film production has a blog, not really. That honour belongs to King Kong (2005). Fact is, what matters is using material supplied to write a production section. Alientraveller 15:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's acceptable to report the production blog of King Kong, but not Prince Caspian? You're saying that this detail isn't worthy of being reported, as based on opinion, while I was just reporting the fact that Disney is publishing a production blog. Again, I don't see justification for this. Microbyte 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Prince Caspian is not unique in having a blog: so does Superman Returns, 300 and Spider-Man 3, and Watchmen will have one. But discussing a blog doesn't at all appear encyclopedic: just work with me here. Use the information provided instead to discuss the production. Alientraveller 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree, but I'm willing to drop it for now, as we're not getting anywhere. Microbyte 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Production Section

I noticed that you had removed the sub-titles of the production section a while back [1]. I thought this might actually help break-up the production section, which can become one massive blob of information. Would you be okay with this? Microbyte 16:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, everything alright? I'm currently fine with Prince Caspian' lack of sectioning for now, as there isn't that much production information. I'll definitely split it around April/May, when the barrage of interviews from cast/crew member hits on every freakin' website. Alientraveller 16:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing pretty good. Hehe, I've been kinda policing the NT2 article for anonymous users who want to say it's already rated. ; ) I'm anti-anon all the way. :D If we did break this section up though, it'd make it easier for somebody to read (Smaller blocks of text alre less intimidating), and it'd also keep stuff organized ahead of time, before the rush of news comes. Does the subsection thing just make it look too big or what? Microbyte 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it'd certainly make the music section look very thin. When writing, I prefer big paragraphs with at least four compound sentences. For a lot of editors, it makes the information more substantial and have more context. Alientraveller 08:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but it'd be easier to find. I thing that's generally a good idea, but this actually might read better as smaller sub-sections, than a larger one. Plus, this is a lot of brief sentences relaying a lot of individual facts, rather than a large paragraph on a smaller range of facts. The music section would be thin, but it'd be easier to find, right? Microbyte 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll see come May. Alientraveller 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, or sooner, depending on what comes out between now and then. Microbyte 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

D'oh

I assume the "D'oh" was because you saw the quote box to the right that quoted Graham?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the edits and I was like..."I thought I had a quote box in there", then I saw you removed it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Just wanted to suggest not responding to this. I don't care to get into an edit war about whether the comment should stay or not, but he shouldn't be dignified with a response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it, I'll keep an eye out for it the next time I go to the book store or the comics shop. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Casino

What do you think of the order now? Casino Royale (2006 film) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know -it looks a different article doesn't it . what do you think also about my edits today to World is not enough and Ernst Stavro Blofeld?. We are also whipping Octopussy into shape. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 19:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I know this -good to know we feel the same. If you compare the Blofeld and World Enough articles to what they were earlier you'll see the differences already. Everything will we done as you said in the coming days. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The pale moonlight

Interested in collaborating on Batman (1989 film) at some point? Tons of sources readily available, and the collection of academic essays I used to reference Batman offers excellent studies of the film (particularly fan opinions, since that kind of stuff is notoriously hard to source).

I would also bring up Transformers (toy line), but I wouldn't know where to start reference-wise. WesleyDodds 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not something I'm planning to do soon; I'm in the middle of working on two FARs, and I've got three articles in mind for FA by the end of the year. But when I do get around to it I'd appreciate any help you could provide. WesleyDodds 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Beware Smaug

Dude! I'm so flippin' pleased that this article is finally cleaned up. I've been watching insipid edits day in and day out regarding that article, and I knew it was way too pulped up. It's so nice to see this concise revision! It's clear that not much has actually happened with the project. Anyway, great work! Your dedication is very admirable. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pilot (Smallville)

I've got a new FAC going on. I'd appreciate lots of criticism and tons of "fix its" from you guys. :) Here is a link to the FAC. Sorry for the generic message.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, it looks like you've met that recalcitrant little fellow, Matthew. He's been reverting style changes in the Harry potter articles, citing nonsense in the face of encyclopedic need. How do you deal with this special little lad? I would like to take a cue from your interactions with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Aspie

You have Aspergers? Same here, man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AR Argon (talk • contribs) 21:56:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

But we're the smartest people ever, and we're destined for success. Just look at Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft.

Fair use rationale for Image:Spider-ManvsMegatron.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Spider-ManvsMegatron.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Phirazo 22:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You also need a fair-use rationale for Image:G1Prime BWMegs.jpg. Thanks, --Phirazo 22:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if you noticed, but Phirazo requested a better fair use rationale for the image mentioned just above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

And if I haven't said so before, I know when I see your name on an edit that it's going to be informed and to an article's betterment! Cheers! --Tenebrae 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I think that the generic categories are OK, per WP:MOSFILMS#Categories. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Spirit

Unfortunately, after some investigation, there really does not seem to be any clear consensus on this matter, and I've found inconsistencies with the implementation of producers' names. Thus, I've initiated discussion here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Grimlock @ the Natural History Museum pic

Pretty neat find and pic you've taken there. That particular Grimlock toy has a special place in my heart because it was the first ever G1 Transformers toy that I got years ago, which I still have. He is quite loose but apart from missing perhaps part or two IIRC and some accessories, is still intact. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What the future holds

I personally am not interested in a Justice League of America film so soon. It's a hell of a gamble to do such a big project. I don't know who should be part of the JLA, but I think that upcoming DC films need to start cross-referencing ASAP, to open the doors to each others' universe. Like some news coverage about Superman's deeds in Metropolis in The Dark Knight. Batman and Superman definitely need to have a few more films to establish their character better. I also think that Wonder Woman and The Flash should have their own films, though I think that the Martian Manhunter should be introduced into this JLA film. (He may not be so identifiable with film audiences for his own stand-alone film.) But still... the size of this project makes me hesitate. What I suggested seems best because the studio can still profit from each individual film about each individual superhero and carry over the production designs to this superhero team film. It seems so easy to screw up, though... this is a bit different from X-Men, when they were primarily known as a team (Wolverine seems to be the only major X-Man to constantly get major individual recognition). I didn't like the approach that Superman Returns took -- I hope there is a kind of re-invention for the sequel, where Lex Luthor is less of a mad scientist and more of a corporate baddie with the sickest technology available to take down Superman.

I also hope they finally get around to doing The Hobbit, too. I think they need to do it sooner so they can draw in bigger audiences before fantasy films become more prominent. As for Toy Story 3, I have not really kept up with animated films like these (on Wikipedia, I mean). I'll take a gander at the article. I love Lord of the Rings, but I was aware that you've done work with these articles, so I wasn't sure if there was any significant issues with them. I'm not sure if I understand the issue with the trilogy article and the FOTR article -- you mean it's hard to avoid redundancy and you don't know where to centralize the information? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was a fan of Kyle Rayner at first (partially 'cause he looked cooler than Hal Jordan in his older suit). I think the Power Ring is cool in the sense that the creation is only limited by the imagination. I remember reading an issue in which all three (Jordan, Rayner, Stewart) were attacking something, and the different styles were noted, like Rayner's creations being cartoony or fantastical, while Stewart's creations were very technical and schematic-based. (I don't remember how Jordan's creations were categorized -- brute force?) My concern with a Green Lantern film is that all-green creations would look like cheesy special effects. It would take a few good wizards to make the effect look convincing. Jordan's downfall via what Bignole proposed, though, would make for some great cinema. On a side note, I've been re-reading Watchmen, and I really, really have no clue how they're going to pull off this project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of my concern for the Watchmen film adaptation is the color scheme that would be used. It's very limited in some panels, like the Comedian's funeral, when you see Moloch holding these flowers. Not to mention the long monologues like Dr. Manhattan's before he leaves for Mars. I have serious doubts about this film being that big of a box office hit; it's too deep. Snyder's background, despite his passion, doesn't help, either. I know that Gibbons seems behind it, but it seems to depend on the actual production and post-production work -- the right scenes, the right edits, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And dammit, I just realized, when the film comes out, people are probably gonna be rabidly adding "Differences between novel and film" and "Trivia" sections. That isn't going to be fun to confront... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To Alientraveller regarding my edit of 'Jurassic Park

_{Subscript text}

You said I couldn't edit pages anymore if I added further incorrect information. You think Jurassic Park has a budget of $95 million, and since I put $63 million then I could get kicked off. Oh yeah?

Here's a link to my source that said Jurassic Park has $63 million. And really, who are you to argue with Box Office Mojo.com?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jurassicpark.htm

ryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.66.92 (talk) 23:42, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're getting sassy! Well, explain how the budget dropped $95 million to $73 million from the 1st to 2nd. Seeing as the second movie had far more special effects (for example, where the first JP had 13 stuntmen JP2 had 49). $95 million is probably JP1's budget adjusted for inflation. And I'm not vandalizing. I'm trying to get the original, unadjusted information out and I won't get kicked off.

ryan 7:06 PM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.66.92 (talk) 23:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi Alientraveller. You reported 66.99.190.66 (talk · contribs) for vandalism, stating the IP had received a final warning. That final warning was 6 weeks ago, so probably wasn't the same person. Please could you check when the last warning actually was before reporting IP addresses to WP:AIV for vandalism? I've removed the entry and given the IP a warning. Best, Neil ム 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Back

Yeah thanks, it was nice, didn't rain for a majority of the week, which is good. Glad to be back though. Gran² 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews. And yes, loads of times. That's how I got the free use images of Mitchell and Webb apparently in existence. But I tend to just search for the already free use ones now, because the last few times I've asked (including for much needed images of Albert Brooks and David Tennant) no one bothered responding. But the ones that did were quite glad to change the licenses, and were thrilled to have their images be used here. Gran² 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought that's who you wanted an image for, saw your work earlier. Looking good, and has she really only been in four released films? Blimey. Gran² 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea what issue of TV Guide it was, and no real thoughts as to how to add in the info, but [2] features scans of of an article about some of the TSM deleted scenes, including confirmation that Russ Cargill was completely redesigned. Anyway, I'll try and find the issue and date, so we can use it. Gran² 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and I can see that the mummy scene would have got riotous laughter had it stayed. Ah well, can't for the DVD. I'm looking through Nohomers for a thread about the article, that should have a date at least, but no luck so far. Gran² 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have now (finally) seen Transformers, and I really liked it. The Autobots were definitly the best thing about the film, I found the part where they were trying to hide around Sam's house hilarious. And the effects were almost certainly Oscar winning, really great stuff. Gran² 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jazz's death was pretty pointless in my view, because he hardly was shown doing anything. I mean before his battle with Megatron, I only remember him having one or two lines. But yes, I expect he'll be brought back, and Starscream will probably find a way to resurrect Megatron as well. Gran² 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol, brilliant. Well that highlights my more than limited Transformers knowledge! Gran² 21:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I got a hint of that when I read it. Anyway, I copied the Reception information into my sandbox. I'm probably going to dump all of the critic information, except for Ebert and Frank Miller. I'm going through RT right now, copying urls, and trying to weed out anything that will be something more than just a "great film."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll read over the whole articles. I was just turned off by the basic "this is the best" lines that were being used. Maybe there is more in the actual interviews that can be of use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you desire to have these "plot descriptions" kept some time ago? ;) I'm reading the "Bat Outta Hell" article from Entertainment Weekly, and it's very informative. Probably could implement some content at Batman film series, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. That's what I meant by "influences" in the to-do list -- from my general knowledge, the early Batman was really just Bruce Wayne putting on a costume. Comics in the past decade have portrayed Batman as needing to put on the costume of Bruce Wayne. I've read about this Batman in Batman Begins being more evenly balanced, and I think I've come across mention of the new portrayal influencing other Batman media. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. Not only is it making me want to watch the movie, but I'm getting more and more amp'd for The Dark Knight. I read some bad reviews and I'm like, "Hater!"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eva Green

Really, I think the main body of the article is great, and it'll pass GA. The fact is, its as comprehensive as it can physically at this point, because really she hasn't had a very long career yet. As for the lead, I've tended to just describe the main acting roles (although I mentioned Azaria's marriage in his). So basically descriptions of her roles in each of her projects "had her breakout role in The Dreamers, become more well known in Kingdom of Heaven and Casino Royale, will appear in The Golden Compass" put with more description. For GA, one paragraph usually suffices for a bio lead. If its still running short, I'd add a basic summary of her early and personal life as well.

And of course, the page will look nicer when you get the free use image. But, I'm certain it will pass a GAC, because its better than this, and that's a GA. Gran² 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great article. I assume you're finding your way into biographical articles before tackling a major one like, say, Steven Spielberg? By the way, I wasn't sure if you knew, but I have Franklyn in my future films, and this citation mentions, "Recently announced projects on Dreammachine's slate include Gerald McMorrow's "Franklyn" with Ewan McGregor, Eva Green, Paul Bettany and John Hurt." For some strange reason, there's been no coverage I can find about this. It seems, too, that Ewan McGregor is no longer attached. I'll check Access World News to see if there are any headline mentions there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I would love to see great articles on these great directors! I can't bring myself to read most unreviewed biographical articles seriously. By the way, for references on directors, this may be useful. You can look up a director, and they list references in relation to them, which seems to be items talking about what they did rather than more specific stuff about their films. If you need me to pull resources from databases, I can do that and send them to you. You should set up a junk e-mail address (at Yahoo or something) for that purpose; I'm sure they'll be easier reading than critical analysis resources. (You should see all the academic studies I found on Fight Club... probably gonna have to do a Interpretations of Fight Club article.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck, there's an entry for Eva Green. Let me know if you want me to retrieve any of these. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Yahoo is free. I use it for registering for sites online where I don't really want to show my real address -- like BOF, for example, when I created "Erik the Bad Guy." I just found PDFs from Interview and Film Review from her listings, so I can send them to you. I didn't compare the content, so I don't know if there's anything fresh from these articles that may not have been from Eva Green Web. Would be more "reliable", anyway, in the sense of the long term, to have a print source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the mail. Good luck interpreting the Critical analysis for Schindler's List, some of the writing was really academic... I'd try to translate it for implementation, but I'm occupied with school and probably will be trying to interpret similar stuff for Fight Club in my free time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about calling it Interpretations of the film Fight Club instead. I'm not sure if there is a lot of academic studies of the novel; the film itself seems to have spurred the large majority of the attention. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are inappropriate for external links unless they are official. If we are using this site for citations, we need to immediately strip out all references as per WP:RS. However, if we are using the citations provided by this website to other sources (for example, if that site provides a citation to an interview in Vogue), we can certainly use those sources for our references (in this case, noting the page and issue of Vogue). Thanks! --Yamla 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussion on WP:ANI and the policies and guidelines WP:EL and WP:SPAM, that link is not appropriate for Eva Green. --Yamla 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been told that the link is not appropriate for Eva Green. This is in violation of our policy on external links and has been discussed on WP:ANI. Do not readd it. --Yamla 16:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC

Geez, nobody's promoted it yet? I was hoping someone with expertise in biographical articles would be able to take a gander. I think it seems well written, so if I have time today, I'll review the foremost biographical articles and compare them to this one, as I don't have a great deal of understanding of these things on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: The blackest eyes....the devil's eyes

I am. I liked Zombie's other movies, and Halloween is definitely one of my favorite movies. I'm planning to go see it with my g/f when I travel to central Florida this weekend (leaving in about an hour or so, in fact). You?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be. It's a little sluggish in the beginning, but it's definitely a film for those that do get squeemish in other "gory" type of movies. It's like Texas Chain Saw Massacre, in that there is hardly any gore, heck, there is hardly any blood at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of old black and white horror movies, but I love eighties slasher flicks like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. I like the ones where you can root for the killer. I also love zombies films like Dawn of the Dead and Evil Dead. And then of course Buffy has plenty of nods to all the classic monsters. Paul730 17:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not the gore I watch it for. With Halloween, it's the suspense - music and the eerie way that Michael is always watching the characters in the background. Nightmare is creepy because of the way the film shifts between the dream world and reality, so you never know when Freddy will strike, and the "sleep is the enemy" theme. I like the Friday franchise because it's like a camp fire story - the legend of Jason - and the tragic story of how he drowned and came back for revenge. The zombie films are like a comedy, as well as a commentary on human nature and society.

I've not seen Frankenstein, but I read the book in my English class. It was a bit dull for my tastes, but I respect the subtext. I like sympathetic villains as well as those who are 100% evil - people like Frankensteins monster, Carrie White, Jason Voorhees, Faith Lehane. Paul730 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Bride still hold up today? One of the things I love about Halloween is that it doesn't seem to age. Yeah, it's not as fast-paced or gory as today's horror movies, but it doesn't feel dated, at least not to me. Paul730 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but I love Ian McKellen. He's such a good actor, and funny too. I like his dry humour as Magneto. Paul730 17:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly a Stephen King reader, though I venture out. I like Dan Brown, Roderick Thorp is a good writer. I cannot stand Michael Crichton, he couldn't write to save his life. He has good ideas, he just cannot write. I've read Frankenstein, and I'm trying, for the second time, to get through Dracula, it's going easier this time (maybe because of Shelley's writing preparing me for this one). Anyway, I'm outta here. Maybe I'll be online some this weekend.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

As I told Bignole, I'm more of a comic fan than a novel-reader. I like some books, but I don't have the patience for the old ones like Lord of the Rings or Dracula. Paul730 18:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're safe with Halloween. :) There's very little gore... it's more someone's-watching-you than someone's-gonna-chop-you-into-little-pieces. There's death, obviously, but nothing particularly explicit. I'd also recomend Halloween H20 after you see the first one. It's more gory, but the development of Jamie Lee Curtis' character is brilliant. Paul730 18:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stay clear of Dawn of the Dead at all costs then. Even I was shocked by the gore and I have a strong stomach. It's a brilliant film, but the goriest things I have seen in my life. Paul730 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep starting new articles because I'm waiting to borrow references from my friend and I can't really continue until I do. (I should write up the citation templates but I don't have the attention span, lol. It'll get done eventually) The Faith article will probably be ready first, I'll contact you when it is. :) Paul730 19:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

DC comics film template and batman

Look, those need to be two articles. I'd like to take on both soon. But the current main article purports that it's all one thing, from 1966 to 2008. The Burton-Schumacher films need their own article, or a thoroughly rebuilt one on that page as series plural, not singular, with the other franchise there. Currently, it's a huge mess, and having two articles to clarify for the uninitiated makes more sense. They'll get cleaned up. ThuranX 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

and thanks for the spacing. (and the dirty pool's a movie line, not an insult. I figured you'd get it, so I'm not worried.) ThuranX 16:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And i'll take all this to the template talk, not three pages at once, and it is me. :) ThuranX 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just typing far too fast. My left and right hands desynchronize the faster I type and I get bad words, missed letters... and signatures... ThuranX 16:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of argue with you, which I'd rather not do, because we work well together, I've opened this up here Talk:Batman_film_series#Split. We can get some feedback and such there, I think. ThuranX 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: I Am Legend

Whoops, I used a New York Times citation to write the synopsis for the film article some time ago. When the official site launched, I used their description instead ('cause the NYT synopsis might've been outdated) and lost the reference. Didn't notice till you pointed it out -- thanks! I usually put the core references alongside content that's sure to stay, but I might've written that up before I implemented that idea in my editing process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I plan to read the book, too, as well as see the first two film adaptations. Haven't watched something with Charlton Heston in a while... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

I would be interested in your reasons for deleting my addition of the Trivia section of the article about Casino Royale (2006 film). This contribution seems to be quite reasonable and is factually correct.Preacherdoc 20:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Your removal is quite unwarranted, and I found it rude that you just posted a single word on my talk page by way of a reply to my remark above. I apologise if you found my remark "snide".

On my talk pages you remark "Anyway, the information isn't particularly important. All you have to do is link Bodyworlds in the plot summary." Two points. First, I agree the information isn't particularly important (that's why I wanted to put it in the Trivia section). (I am prepared to accept that now Wikipedia doesn't want Trivia sections, although my opinion is that they can serve a useful purpose). Next, the Body Worlds exhibition has nothing to do with the Plot of the movie: why would I want to put it there?

You might notice that I'm not a Wiki novice. The whole point about an encyclopaedia is that it is encyclopaedic, and that even information of comparatively minor importance deserves to be included. As an anatomist myself (as well as a Bond fan), I think that featuring anatomical specimens in a James Bond film IS important, (as well as visually striking and emotionally unsettling).

I'm going to have just one more go with the article. Please note, however, that your style of removing material without explanation is unhelpful and is likely to put people off contributing to Wikipedia. You could, for example, have moved my material to a different location within the article, or otherwise modified it.Preacherdoc 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks Erik. I notice I get the ominous warning paragraph, and Alientraveller gets a friendly "heads-up".

Two against one. My life is too short for this. This is exactly the reason why I am almost on the point of giving up on Wikipedia as a medium. Preacherdoc 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand Comics Database

Hey, A. Howzit goin'? I'm not sure you meant to remove the Grand Comics Database http://www.comics.org as spam. There was a spamming editor who was been inserting the Marvel Database Wiki, and I think the similar names caused confusion. I can vouch for GCD as a resource for issue dates, credits, etc. that I use all the time. --Tenebrae 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ABM

If you could copyedit A Beautiful Mind (film) really quick, I'd appreciate it. :) The Filmaker 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I am posting here to discuss why you deleted all the updates I made to "The Dark Knight" article. I am an accredited Chicago film critic. The text I updated is all proven information from a legitimate film publication that has been referenced in hundreds of news articles around the Web. Can you please explain to me why you deleted it all? --AdamFendelman 20:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC pass of A Streetcar Named Marge

Hi, thanks for your GAC reviews. I'd appreciate if you'd check out WP:UCGA for instructions on tagging GAs with the GA or AH templates to make sure they are categorized. Also leaving a review which compares the article to the criteria is preferred. Thanks again, LARA♥LOVE 19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Manila Hotel

Thanks for putting up that free image! That should definitely up its chances for getting passed as a good article! GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, whoops! I didn't notice that it had already passed. Thanks again! GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

Done. Nighy quality isn't that great, but it was either that or it was tiny.

• Image:Billnighy.jpg
• Image:Michaelyork.jpg
• Image:Optimusprimealtmoviemode.jpg

I'll leave them to you. Gran² 14:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Special watchlists

Thought this might interest you. You can change the category to something else if you want. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IESB.net

Need a third opinion before I abandon any attempt at good faith. Could you lend your view to the discussion over at Potter 5 as to whether ISEB.net should be used as a review in the reception section. Thanks Gran² 19:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Maddox at FAC

Hello Alientraveller: I wonder if you would mind reviewing/copyediting my article on Bruno Maddox that is currently at FAC? It is currently in the comment-comment-comment stages but seems to be going generally well. Any advice you might have would be much appreciated. Best, BillDeanCarter 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Skull

There's an article at crystal skull... appears to be some mythology behind it. I'm sure the filmmakers will take creative licensing with its background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Prestige plot deletions

Alientraveller, do you know what's up with the recurring plot-ending-deletion edits on The Prestige? It's getting tiresome. I can't give much credence to an anon IP with uninformative edit summaries.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Second unit in info boxes

HI ALien many stunt coordinators or second unit or art directors are very prominent. Would you support it if I proposed adding another boundary or two to the infoboxes with second unit director and casting or art director maybe. It would be limited to the top coordinators of course ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull image issue

Be careful, dude. I noticed that you are in violation of WP:3RR. -- Scjessey 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man

I realize you're from the UK, and obviously don't know the difference between two types of US soldiers in uniform. Here is proof that the troops are actually air force enlisted personnel and not army troops.

pic 1 pic 2 pic 3 pic 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatr99 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Np, it's just when you work in the military little things like that stick out, in this case the fact that movie producers have access to the new air force uniforms, and most everyone in the real air force is still using the old ones! Anyway, thanks for the welcome. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatr99 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Transformers: Spotlight

Hey man. I saw the outline for the Spotlights in the Sandbox you sent, and I think it looks great. One question though; I know nothing about templating stuff, but would it be possible to keep some of the notes sections, specifically the parts of the Spotlights that set up the stuff we see in the main storyline? I realise it would be ungainly as hell, but I think it would help for casual readers to know the backgrounds to the Dead Universe/Reaper/Doubledealer etc storylines as they come into play in the main storyline. All the best.SMegatron 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks great - short, concise and to the point. Also, we can add more to it as more Spotlights come out (Furman having noted in his blog that January next year will see the first of the third lot). Thanks again. SMegatron 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the ref on the main IDW TF article. And the Spotlight article looks really good. Nice job.SMegatron 13:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Potter

Lol, more like one second! Well I saw my chance and I took it. Anyway, as for PS, not yet. I need some more work on it, more reviews, box office, marketing and some better production. If you can find any good (EW esque) sources for it. But I'm not going to add a themes section... Gran² 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, really really good, EW really are one of the best when it comes to movies. Anyway, the production section looks a lot better now, so onto the reception section and marketing and a quite ce and its done. Gran² 20:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, do you think it could be deemed a problem that half of the references are from IGN and writen by Brian Linder? Gran² 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right that's added in, thanks. What do you think of the article as is, do you think there's anything massive missing? With of course the exception of a better reaction section, which I probably will have been arsed to do some time before next Monday. Gran² 20:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you find anything good to expand the music section? I've looked but to no avail. I did have thought about merging the music, effects and design info into one section, if no more info was easily accessible. Gran² 15:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider this a reliable source? I know its a fansite, but its bloody good, and would make for a fuller differences section. Gran² 11:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well actually she has endorsed it, on her official site it was the second fansite she her "Fansite Award" to. And she says in her description of it, that when she was writing some of the later books she often used it to check things she couldn't remember herself. But meh, I can't find anything else even slightly relevant or reliable to expand the music section, and an IP kindly expanded the Reaction section, so I'm going to add a sentence about the premiere and then I'm going to niminate it for GA. That should at least get some more comments, even if it fails again. Gran² 15:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know, I think Secrets would be harder to do (because it is slightly older), but I'll into. And maybe try then both at the same time. Gran² 16:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Emma Watson FAC

BTW, have you checked the progress at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson? I'm not sure your rationale provides a valid reason to oppose, because I don't think the content changes from day to day anymore than a 25-year-old actor's page does. That said, I think I've offered some reasons that you may want to weigh in on. I'm waiting to see if the editors will be able to improve the article. I've never participated in an FAC review before, so I'm not sure if their improvements will happen fast enough or if they'll need to come back and renominate. I don't really understand how long the candidacy will last, or what happens if they disagree with my criticism and just stop there. --Melty girl 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance, please check out some of the reasons I still currently oppose. They include an instance of plagiarism and writing that is awkward, tangential and not Wikipedia's best. I do hope that these problems will be addressed, however. Cheers, Melty girl 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationales

Please do not remove the disputed rationale tag from an image unless you have addressed the concern raised. In the case of Image:CraigGreenRoyale.jpg, the concern is that you have not established how the screenshot is being used to provide critical commentary. This is required by the image license. Just reverting my request does not resolve the dispute. --Yamla 19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disengage

Please disengage from your current argument with Yamla. Yamla has stated that disengagement will happen at that side. Back off, take a deep breath and calm down a bit.

Let a little bit of time pass and I'll arrange for some sort of mediation. Okay? ➔ This is REDVEЯS 20:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Eva Green GA

Congrats! My GA review for Cillian Murphy was more extensive, and perhaps unnecessarily so. Glad it was pretty painless for you. --Melty girl 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen

Might I request your assistance in cleaning up the references to Watchmen? For an FA they're a bit of a mess. I also inserted a summary-style paragraph for the film (a previous version was removed months ago, but a mere link to the article doesn't suffice per summary style), but I bet you could craft a better one than I. WesleyDodds 10:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If only you had the font . . . WesleyDodds 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "You're making me angry," you wouldn't like the fact that I stole a line from a 70's show and corrupted it

I didn't think those two had any chemistry, and the character of Betty Ross seemed like you couldn't figure out if she loved Bruce, wanted to turn him into authorities or what. It was like she was a robot, she had no true emotion. Bana wasn't that bad, but I think that's because some of the dialogue wasn't that great, and I'm not particularly happy with the fact that the stole a line from the Bill Bixby television show (a show I personally like) and altered it. If you're going to pay homage to something, do it right. But the comic book editing was really annoying. It was commendable, but it was more distracting than anything. I personally didn't have a problem, as apparently most people did, with the CGI Hulk. I thought it looked pretty good in most instances. We have to remember that our brains know there is no such creature out there, and seeing a 20 foot Hulk isn't that believable..lol. That Nick Nolte thing seemed just stuck on at the end, and it just wrapped up so anti-climatically. I saw some concept art of the new Hulk, and I'm getting weary of how the body is going to look, because it looks less human and more animated series-esque.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Refering to this, the way the muscle lines are stripped horizontally. It may just be for the drawing, and look different--hopefully better--on screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in; there's only one Hulk for me and that's Jennifer Walters. Go Shulkie, the funniest character to ever grace the Marvel Universe! :) I like Hulkling too, but he's a Kree/Skrull, not a Hulk. Paul730 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they modeled the face after Bana, but this one doesn't look like Norton, it looks more like the comics. That can be good and bad. I don't know. I'll have more of an opinion when I see some actual clips.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Character discussion

I know you aren't a member of the Simpsons WikiProject, but I thought you might be interested in taking part in this discussion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg films

There's an awful lot of stubby articles about his announced projects, as one can see from Template:Steven Spielberg. Any thoughts about merging articles like Interstellar (film) and so forth? Maybe we could put it on List of Steven Spielberg films (maybe re-title as Steven Spielberg films to permit prose), or just merge the content to their relevant source material or background? The Lincoln biopic would be easy, but something like Interstellar seems tricky. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that works -- you got a chortle from me about "no prizes for guesses". :) What about Chicago Seven for the mention? I guess I'm not keen on adding upcoming projects to directors' articles unless there's no other choice. Kip Thorne sounds good enough for Interstellar, seeing that the wormhole articles doesn't provide ample opportunity for mentioning the film. By the way, was talking to WesleyDodds, and he said you had turned down collaboration on Batman (1989 film) -- was wondering why. 'Cause of Batman Begins or just not that big of a fan of the 1989 film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to the Trivia sections. ;) I'll merge Interstellar and Chicago 7, since these would be the easiest. Might need to check with the editor who expanded Tintin (film) lest there be any conflicts about the content being merged. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Harrison Ford looks terrific. I wonder how big his paycheck must be to warrant his devotion to the physique of the role. :) I'm more of a runner, too -- my best friend referred to me as an ectomorph. As for Shia, I imagine they'd try to capture a look of the youth in the film's time period. My issue is just with the get-up -- it doesn't look that good to me, something like a poor broke man's James Dean. Everyone else looks fantastic, though. Ray Winstone looks like the quintessential Indiana Jones side character, just having the rugged and not to mention a Samwise-type look ("I'll follow you, Indy!"). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Autobot City other than from the animated feature film. (If I saw it in some Transformers episode as a kid, I cannot remember for the life of me.) I was wondering, though, how the good Transformers would situate themselves on Earth -- there'd be governments all wanting to study them, especially the U.S. in the absence of the Allspark. An isolated Autobot City would make sense, I guess, to avoid being in support of any particular nation and to just be guardians of the planet in general. I'm interested in seeing who Starscream brings back -- I imagine that one of them will be capable of deep-sea exploration to retrieve a certain boss? I don't know the possibilities of the Transformers universe, though I'd kind of like to see someone besides Michael Bay direct the sequel. Bits like that Section 7 agent getting "lubricated" on were a bit too much. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How would they introduce Dinobots, though? It seems somewhat implausible, I guess... I like what Michael Bay did for the Transformers' design, but I'm just not a fan of his direction. I don't think it was a popcorn fest conceived well enough for me to overlook its holes. A film like The Bourne Ultimatum was terrific for me; there were just elements in Transformers that bothered me -- just general movie cliches. I'd like a darker approach, definitely, but I'd like some logic, too, like not having Transformers throw down in a populated downtown area. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: More than meets the DVD

I planned on getting the DVD. I hadn't thought about which version, but if I can afford the extra 10 dollars, or whatever it is, I'll get the 2-disc version.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was very good. Bizarro was actually a pretty interesting character to watch. Tom Welling did a good job with it. Plus, they synthesized his voice so that it was a little deeper, which helped.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

William Gibson GA

Yo, thanks for taking a look at the William Gibson article. The changes you advised on the talkpage have now been made. Does the article now fulfill the GA criteria? Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He Loves to Fly and He D'oh's

I'm currently readying the page for a possible GAC run, but it has no production section, and is unlikely to ever get one. There are episode GAs without such sections (see: Hell on Earth 2006), but they make up for it with other large sections. COuld you please look at the page and give me any opinions you might have? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I'm working on it is because I'm trying to get a post-DVD episode to GA status and I figured it would be one of the easier ones because of all of the stuff released about it. We have 40 GAs from seasons 1-9 and I thought it would be a nice change to have the most recent episode reach it. I'll make Deep Space Homer my next GA project when I'm done with this one. Besides, I think the article is longer than My Sister, My Sitter and it's a GA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done with it. I don't think you can review it because you have edited the article within the last month, but do you think you would pass it if you did review it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it. I figured that since you can't review it, it will take a month before somebody reaches it so between now and then I'll have lots of time to try to find more sources and bulk it up. And, I'll start work on Deep Space Homer, but it will probably take a week before its ready because I don't have a lot of time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy FAC

Any interest in reviewing the article you nominated for GA now that it's up for FA? It's much improved. Thanks, Melty girl 06:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

This is a secondary source (New York Post). The mere "intern" has his picture on the front page of Slate (see [3]). The article even says currently that the original script didn't have Indy's son in it, with the obvious implication that the newer script does. The other details, Soviets in South America (what, not enough Nazis in 1950s South America??) hardly seem like spoilers, but, whatever is clever. I don't usually care for spoilers myself. -- 67.98.206.2 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Since you say you are an expert, and I thought Superman Returns sucked, I had a question. In the movie, the bad guy shot Superman in the eyeball, one of the most sensitive and easily damaged parts in the human body. But the bullet impacted and had no effect on SM. Seeing this, one would assume that ANY outside force would have no impact on ANY part of his body, right? So if a person put their hand on his, or if someone touched him anywhere, his body would show total resistance, like the Silver Surfer, right? His skin would feel like steel, and since he has arm hair, that would be like steel wool and would slice one's hand, and most likely his clothing as well. This would give away his secret identity in a moment. Oh, speaking of hair, why does his hair move in the wind? The wind would be considered an "outside force", much like a bullet, and by the bullet-to-the-eye theory, would have zero impact on his body, much less his hair. So he needs to use his heat-vision to cut his hair, but the wind can move it around? Please explain, since it seems you have dedicated your life to this alternative universe of comics and sci-fi.James Dylan 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Brainiac

Document the design of the ship? How do you mean? Just basic design, or do you mean in comparison to something else?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If I find stuff I'd be sure to include it. The companion book won't be out till November. There are two commentaries for season five, both on episodes that feature Brainiac. Hopefully, there will be something there about it. There may be more out there on the web as well. Right now I'm trying to get season two info in order. I haven't even tackled the bonus features for that season yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As for "S:MoS" it will depend on how they do it. They really need to take some cues from Smallville with regard to action sequences, because Smallville does far better with action than really any of the previous films have. Granted we didn't have the technology to do what they do today, but that was one aspect where Singer kind of dropped the ball. My petition is to abandon kryptonite for the next film, and bring in some physical beings that can go toe-to-toe with Superman. Kind of like Superman II but less comedic. You could have had a lot of fun with Superman II if they had the SFX that we have today. On a side note, I'm curious as to how they are going to bring in Brainiac for this current season, as his character has a minor story arc that will be going on. Bignole (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can, I suggest picking up the DVDs. The show is amazing--of course it has it's "notsogood" episodes, but as a whole it's pretty awesome for a television show about Superman--it's worth it. Chloe wasn't Lois because they couldn't Lois for one thing, and I don't think they expected her character to become so popular. I do believe they were planning to--or have already done it--add Chloe to the comics. She's obviously in the Smallville comics, but I could have sworn they were going to add her to the ones in canon. I love Chloe, and she's become ever more likeable now that she knows the truth about Clark.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely. Chloe is in-love with Clark, but the feeling isn't mutual. She has since grown out of that, and they both love each other like family now. With Lois, at this point in the show--and probably never going to happen, based on the stipulations Gough and Millar have for using the character--Lois and Clark will never be together, and they will probably only hint at having any kind of romantic interest in each other. Right now, they are purely friends--and their friendship grows over time. Chloe and Clark are far closer than Lois and Clark, mostly because Chloe knows the truth. It's good to have Chloe, because it provides the window into how Lois gets into journalism. Everything has a means in Smallville, that's one reason I like the show, because they try and explain how things happen instead of just going: "ok, these two hate each other, this one is an alien and has powers..yada yada".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wolverine

I think that we should adhere to the notability guidelines. I know that there are film articles that go under the radar to exist on their own, like The Lovely Bones (film), but I'd rather not actively undo the merge for Wolverine. Something like the development process for The Fountain could still happen, being so far along in pre-production in Australia and collapsing. Not to mention that the upcoming strike may intervene indirectly. Also, I'm not sure about using the IGN citation -- maybe it could be included and written, "IGN reported that..." as opposed to directly saying, "Screenwriter Skip Woods was brought in..." Obviously, when we get a more concrete citation, we should include it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Gavin Hood seems like a decent choice to be the director of Wolverine -- his previous projects, Tsotsi and the upcoming Rendition have pretty serious themes, and I hope he pursues that with Wolverine. I hope he can effectively create a human world in which mutants dwell -- the previous X-Men films tended to have the mutants interacting with each other except for the human antagonists (the senator and the general). Hopefully Wolverine will be more involved like in the very beginning of X-Men with the cage fight. Now, if they could only make progress on Magneto, though I'm not sure if the interest level in that one would be so high -- Magneto seems to work better off promoting and enforcing the rule of Homo superior like in the film series, as opposed to Logan, who can thrive just fine on his own. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh, I hate to be right. :-P I hope this doesn't turn into further delay... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comics/Films

Yeah, if they recast Batman I would just lose interest. It's not even that I care about Rachel Dawes (didn't even remember her name until I checked her Wikipedia page), but people changing their faces makes it hard to believe in the universe. I really enjoyed Claremonts run; I think his version of Storm is the best I've ever read, athough his Wolverine is a bit flat IMO. I know what you mean about the aliens and stuff; I hate the Shi'ar, the just don't feel like they belong in an X-Men comic. I generally prefer X-Men vs Magneto storylines to all the outlandish stuff, but Dark Phoenix was really good. Other "classic" stories I've read come to think of it are Mutant Genesis (start of the Blue/Gold teams) and Dream's End (the death of Colossus). I really liked Dream's End, but apparently the fans hate it? I love the teenage New X-Men, all the characters are so good, I hope they last the distance and don't drop off like the New Mutants did. Paul730 13:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

X3 is a funny thing. I really liked it in the cinema, but in hindsight, it kinda sucked. It would have made two great movies, but the two stories just clashed. Too many of the new characters weren't done justice (Colossus, WTF???) and even the existing characters were shunned (Cyke and Rogue). The only thing that film really did right was Phoenix, even if she didn't get the attention she deserved. A quote from Total Film sums her up nicely I feel; Best of all is Famke Janssen’s electrifying return as the Phoenix. Playing the super-freaky mind-control goddess like GoldenEye’s Xenia Onatopp’s all-powerful psycho sister, her scenes – particularly that one with the house – crackle with energy and tragedy. If only the rest of X3 had followed suit. Paul730 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Janssen is amazing, I love the scene with her and Wolverine in the med room. I'm a big fan of strong characterization, and with the exception of Jean, Prof X, Wolvie, and Magneto, X3 sorely lacks that. I dislike Berry as Storm too, she just doesn't have the presence of an African goddess. I thought Gina Torres would be good as Storm, she really looks like her. Paul730 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't that impressed with Ellen Page's Kitty. Her "dickhead" line really makes me cringe. I don't think the character lived up to her potential. Hopefully she'll be better in a sequel. They need to breathe some life into Iceman as well, he's so boring. Paul730 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I never go to the cinema unless it's a film I really want to see (like X3) or if my friends make me to go with them. I going this Saturday for my friend's 18th, but I don't know what we're seeing. Paul730 20:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you that I can't be bothered with moany fanboys. While I do have a few least favourite characters and stories, I'm generally positive about the things I like. If you've read my conversations with Bignole, you'll know I hate so-called Buffy fans who spend all their time bitching about how much they hate everything. I'm like, "be grateful for one of the greatest series of all time." If you don't like something, don't watch it is what I say. That's why I quit watching Charmed. Paul730 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it had Willow and what? You might like the episode "Hush", it's scary, but in a Tim Burton fairy-tale way rather than downright gory. Here's a trailer. Nothing in Buffy is ever that gory, with the exception of Willow's revenge on Warren and Xander's... well, let's just say he wears that eyepatch for a reason, lol. Paul730 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Oh come on, Warren deserved it. :P Besides, he's alive and well again in the new comics. Well, alive, anyway. I'd like to improve Cyclops' article, but to be honest I don't have that many sources for it. Maybe after I get a few of the Buffy characters done. Speaking of, in my Buffy sandbox, do you think it would be better aesthetically if I had a seperate paragraph for each season (of her appearances) or should I keep them merged? I don't want to spread them out too thin. Paul730 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was conscious of how I split it up. Basically, it's the high school years, the college years, and the adult years. I'm less happy with Faith's appearances, and haven't attempted Angel's. Any advice? (All sandboxes are linked on my user page). Paul730 20:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What does "sprinkling citations" mean?

What did you mean by "sprinkling citations is pointless" in this edit? Thanks, Mike R 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation you removed is of the actual Edmond Sun article being discussed. How can you say that it's "not contributing a thing"? Mike R 17:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about citing the newspaper article without linking to the Google cache? Mike R 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wall-E Press release info

Hello. Try any number of places that have info similar to what's here.

http://upcomingpixar.blogspot.com/2007/10/official-wall-e-synopsis.html

My guess is that the BVI press people have granted access to specific few people, and U.P. is one of those who can get the press releases before they're posted anywhere else. SpikeJones 02:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GAOH Die Another Day

All corrections are done. Can you pass this now? Vikrant Phadkay 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park franchise

I've reported the editor for violating 3RR. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

He's responded on his own talk page here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to become involved in the current ongoing issues here, but I just checked the film jacket on my old VHS tape, and the producers for the film are listed as Kathleen Kennedy and Gerlad R. Molen. Spielberg is listed only as director. LonelyBeacon 00:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kamp Krusty GA

We seem to have addressed the issues you suggested (see disscussion page). Any more improvements you can suggest before I renominate the article? --Simpsons fan 66 03:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, copyright issues are the last thing I need. Why do we have to lose the bullet points? aren't they standard formatting? How would I arrange the cultural refs otherwise? --Simpsons fan 66 04:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have renominated the article, could you give it a look over? --Simpsons fan 66 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The on hold issues have been addressed and I have replaced the good article tag with a "on hold" tag. What is the position now? Is it ready? --Simpsons fan 66 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome. Thanks for all your help. --Simpsons fan 66 10:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy films

What's your take on His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass? It doesn't look like it will turn out to be very good either, in my opinion. We need PJ to show the light again with The Hobbit, IMO. I'm hoping that The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian will perform well, as I considered its predecessor pretty underwhelming after LOTR set the bar so freaking high. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird coincidence -- I just added something about Brad Silberling right before you mentioned him. I'll have to check out the Lemony Snicket film -- I got it from Netflix long ago, but I didn't have time to watch it, so I returned it. From what I've seen of Prince Caspian, I think I'll enjoy it more. I think perhaps the first film might've been too anthromorphic for me. :) In a way, Narnia made sense to adapt following LOTR, and perhaps that was somewhat warranted for His Dark Materials (despite the latter film's controversy in lacking "antireligiosity"). Beyond these, though, I can't imagine what well-aged fantasy adaptations would come next. I'm not a big fantasy fan, but I've heard that most works are essentially LOTR clones. However, I've heard good things about A Song of Ice and Fire, for which there is an HBO adaptation in development. Fantasy probably doesn't have the pop culture presence that superheroes do, so it may be harder to expand that genre in the film industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Found an interesting article about fantasy entering the film industry when going through my Google Alerts (these keep piling up on me). By the way, you might be thinking of Pixelface with his reception section contributions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the madman jibe was just a joke aimed at your liking LWW, which I hated. And my dislike of the film had nothing to do with the Christian allegory - after all, do we diss The Matrix for the same? As I say, it's a long story, but I'm going out right now so can't get into it. However, I will do my best to explain upon my return. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I had a long rant against the film prepared and everything, but OK :) As a very, very brief precis, I'll merely say that it annoyed me that these annoying, privileged children are the saviours of Narnia for no other reason than a prophecy says so. Come the final battle, not one of them has actually done anything to bring about the downfall of the White Witch. Everything which is achieved by the forces of good is done without them. They're mere bystanders, yet once Aslan dies they're told to lead this army. If I was one of the centaur generals, I'd be pretty pissed off at the fact that I'd been preparing for this for 100 years, yet these kids who have only just arrived get all the credit (for doing nothing) and become the Kings and Queens of Narnia afterwards. Where's the fairness in that?

Um. I said a 'precis' didn't I. I'll stop now before my blood boils. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Centiques?

Okay so I'm watching the DVD that came with my "The Sun Simpsons Movie Family Pack", looking for anything good to add to the movie page. All there is some pretty good info about the animation, and how they used digital ink and computers for most of the film, and they have David Silverman, Steve Moore and Lauren MacMullan talking about it. One of the things Moore says is that they got to use computers which allowed them to draw onto the monitors using digital ink. But Moore calls them something, but I can't find out what he is actually referring to and how to spell it. He calls them "centiques" or some form of that (cetiques, centecs, sentecs, sentiques etc.), but I can't find out exactly as the DVD doesn't have subtitles. So do you have any idea what he was talking about? Gran² 16:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit

FYI, I added this at the disambiguation page because it may not be as easy for casual readers to find information about the film. I think the placement is good in the encyclopedic sense, but I thought there should be more guidance toward the content if someone was curious about the film. Should we expand the top link at The Hobbit instead, or do both? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

revert on incredible hulk

first, if you're going to revert citing 'two views', at least make it a full revert, reincludingthe citation so it can be discussed by others more easily; they won't have to go digging into the history. Second, Look at arad's statement, it's from over a year ago., Since then, Penn, far more involved inth e film, has discussed it at length, and made it clear that he's relying on the first film to make th character accessible to the audience, but not on the facts of the film as canon. His alien/aliens statement was reported prior to the report abotu Ed Norton helping rewrite the film to be distinct from the first. As such, using the most recent reliable information, and since we know that films change during production, making the most recent reports from reliable sources the most acurate reports, the article should not reflect Arad's view as a matter of fact to be debated, but should remove that, reflecting changes made in the script and production since arad's statement. ThuranX 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Per this link, see this quote: "But Norton had well-established (if underground) writing experience and strong ideas about how to separate the film from any confusion over its connection to the 2003 Ang Lee version by casting it in a more distinct, starting-over vein like "Batman Begins" or "Casino Royale."" It's citation 19 on the current version, i believe. It makes clear that the 03 and 08 are distinct, and separate... the 'starting over'. As we know that BB was a complete break with the old and start of a new, we can see, combined with Arad's 'do-over' and Penn's statements of reliance on the audience familiarity to aid with origin telling, that it's a new film, unconnected. As you may or may not know, this is also a problem at the Marvel Comics Film template, where an editor continues to try to create a franchise where it was, and ought to be, based on the citation, a new distinct film. brain fart, completely forgot that that's HOW we got onto this. UGH... I blame paint fumes and sawdust. (yardwork and ome improvement saturday, Wiki's the breaktime fun) ThuranX 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it. It's not a sequel. Think of it this way... The new film won't retell the origin story. It will rely on the audience knowing about Banner and the gamma radiation, and that the army is after him, but it won't be specifically referencing the lab accident with 'the gamma sphere', just perhaps 'lab accident'. It won't discuss his father. It won't mention gamma poodles. The out-of-universe knowledge propigated by the first film is being relied upon by Penn to avoid spending his time portraying every aspect of the new In-Universe origin he's got in mind when telling his tale, but will instead spend less time tweaking the 'generic' origin to tailor it to HIS new hulk. The OOU the audience has well be relied on, but the IU facts aren't relied on. The first movie's specific facts no longer count, but the basic :banner, lab, gamma, army chase, love betty, south america: is being usedas a jump ff point. It's a complicated thing, but it's closer to batman begins, where we know :bruce, parents killed, traumatized, trains hard, spends bucks, gets gadgets, fights crime: fact set, but whee the joker we see in Dark Knight has ZERO to do with jack nicholson's jack napier. It's messy, but not as interrelated as Superman 1, 2, and Returns were supposed to be (and speaking of places where a clear reboot should've happened...) Anyways, glad you concur on the template talk and keeping them separate. ThuranX 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"requel" is a great neologism, I laughedout loud at it. As for the rewrite, you mean my sandbox rewrite, or the one on the actual article page? (If you haven't looked at my sandbox one, pleaes do, and comment on my regular talk... ) ThuranX 20:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Prestige

Thanks for the note. I was not aware of this restriction. But I think they will might prove damaging to Wikipedia as it will take some of the fun out of contributing to Wikipedia. This is not meant (only) as a critism of you deleting my edit on a discussion page, but more of a general rant against the many restrictions that are put in place about what you can/not write about in discussions, what articles are "noteworthy" etc. etc. Not only do I think such distinctions will always be arbitrary and/or subjective (at best, it will be a majority-rule), I also don't think it is what many users of Wikipedia would prefer. I can understand that people can't ramble about their interpretation of a movie on the article page, but this is a "Discussion" page, for crying out loud ;-) Worst of all, many of the restrictions doesn't seem to serve any purpose (other than giving some apparent pleasure to people who like to go on a deletion-frenzy -- this is often users that don't themselves do/are capable of contributing any actual content to Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Para82 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Die Another Day

Can you pass it now? Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dream cast

Thoughts? Feel free to use the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WW quote

Hi Alientraveller -- do you have an article or cite for that "will not produce films with women leads" quote? that's outrageous! --lquilter 16:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (1967 film)

Hi,

Would you look at this film and, hopefully, pass it for GA status ?

It's been outstanding on the GA list since 12 September 2007 !

Could you do it ?

Thanks,

Tovojolo 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Valkyriecast.jpg

Hi, I uploaded an updated version of Image:Valkyriecast.jpg, as the version you uploaded was in .BMP format (despite the .jpg extension). No sense in making it 5x the size it needs to be! fraggle 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hit and Run

I have uploaded a test version of The Simpsons Hit and Run here. As you will see I have only really changed the text, adding new sections and expanding the plot. It doesn't have any references or pictures, which I hope to remedy later on. Could you please give it a look and add any suggestions on the page's disscusion page with your signature? I really appreciate your opinion. --Simpsons fan 66 23:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Colossus

Hey, I left a comment at Talk:X-Men film series. It's about whether Daniel Cudmore is in X1? Nobody's replied yet, so since you seem to be a regular editors at that page, thought I'd ask you about it. Paul730 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Scarecrow

If Digby333 adds the Scarecrow again to the Cillian Murphy filmography, I'll be reverting it a third time. Would you mind keeping an eye out? Thanks. --Melty girl 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)