User talk:Erik/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks

I was going to have to do it. I love his little display of naiveté there "What, my poor little link is spam"? Daniel Case 19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the above remark and strike it through; it was a mild example of biting a newcomer and not something a Wikipedian should do. I hope that this does not deter this user from opening an account and making productive contributions to Wikipedia. Daniel Case 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's get real here. I'm sincerely sorry I did something I wasn't supposed to, but please bear in mind that it was with good intentions. I offered my apologies for Eric having to revert all the changes I did, and also I explained that it was really not clear to me that these kinds of links are not appreciated. I'm not a spammer, just an avid blogger. No hard feelings regarding the removal of my links, but you don't have to make fun of me either.

The point I'm trying to make it that in the process of entering my links, there was no clear notice telling me what is appropriate and what not. A simple link to your policy whould have stopped me adding those links in the first place. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 (talk • contribs) 16:06, November 1, 2006

Appreciate the time and effort you guys put into this, Wikipedia rulez ;-) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 (talk • contribs) 16:18, November 1, 2006

Re:Bruce

Hmm, I hadn't rechecked the blog to see, but that's interesting. I say, if the official blog has removed that bit of information then we should remove it as well under the grounds that "the official blog that held the source, confirming Bruce's role as a Matre'd, has been removed and as such is no longer a verifiable cite for this information". Or, something along those lines, at least that is my opinion on the subject. But, that's a good catch by you either way. Bignole 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw and I took care of it (before I even read your message..lol). I removed it on the grounds that Wiki isn't a crystal ball and is not a forum or place for fandome rumors (which in my opinion that is what all that is until someone of status actually says otherwise). I don't care if it's EMPIRE, or Entertainment Weekly, or any other magazine that is reputable, unless they quote someone from the film...and to me that means something other than "a production worker has said ...yadayadayada.." then it shouldn't be counted. I also saw your edit to Reynold's page, about the Bourne movie, and I left a message concurring with many of the points you made, while also giving a few suggestions for him to him as well. I directed him to "The Dark Knight" because both are films that have just started production and "TDK" would be a good model for him and that article. Bignole 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bourne Ultimatum (film)

Got your message. Nice of you to take the time to read the article. Bignole said he'd get back to me in a few days also, so I'll tap into both your expertise and work it out. I'll let you know what happens. It's nice to see fellow Wikipedians lending a hand. Lately, I was beginning to feel a little beat up by some of the other editors (Ace Class Shadow). Reynoldsrapture 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I'm beginning to think that we may need to file for a semi-protection of the page to stop needless rumor edits by Anons. I think if this continues we will have to because many "regular" editors will be forced to come dangerously close to their 3 reverts trying to correct these edits. Bignole 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the edit, you go to the sockpuppet report page and provide your examples as to why you believe them to be a sockpuppet and they will be dealt with accordingly. Bignole 16:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a feeling as we draw closer to the film more and more rumors are going to spread and this is going to become very hectic. Also, a semi-protection doesn't discourage editors, it just says "please register and go get some experience editing before you come to this page...show us you are a mature editor that understands the rules". Bignole 16:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. It seems that he has at least acknowledged that he was incorrect and explained that he didn't know how to use the talk page. We can try and help him out with getting the knowledge on how to properly edit. I still believe in the semi-protect though. Bignole 17:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just filed the protection request. Bignole

We got out semi-protection. Hopefully this should help us against Anons adding nonsense before the film comes out. Bignole 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say pretty bad, especially considering that the "well established" users are adding the new Venom info. Bignole 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems as though if someone finds the image on the internet, even though others have taken it down at the request from Sony, that it's ok to use the ones that some sites didn't take down. Bignole 16:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to talk about the image uploading. There is a place where you can ask and admins and stuff will respond..not sure where it is. It was the place that wanted to remove the lenticular poster at one time. But, if SONY says "remove the image" and someone doesn't remove the image, that doesn't justify putting it on here. Now, once "AN" image is released in the trailer, that can be fair game, as long as the image is used properly and isn't just "eye candy". As for the "concept art", I don't know, because it isn't clear if people are supposed to see that ever. I think that if Sony releases that officially, maybe on their website, then sure. Bignole 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to repeat the same thing for so many characters? It says "based on new evidence" on every character connected to Peter or Flint. Oh, and is his name Flint or....w/e that other one is that is on the page. Part of the page says one name and the other says another. Bignole 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just went in and reworded some of it so that it didn't seem like the same sentence over and over again. Hope you don't mind. Bignole 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert, because it's part of a major story arc; I just reworded. In my opinion, there can never been too many citations. It's always better to make sure you say where you got, even if you've already said so earlier in the page, than to come across someone that's like "hey there's no cite for this, you're plagarizing" or some BS like that. Bignole 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn the "semi-protection" protected against newly registered users, yet I just saw someone with a fresh ID (created today) edit three times on the Spider-Man 3 page. *scratches head* Did my eyes deceive me, or did someone remove our semi-protection; not tell us, but leave the protection tag on the page. Bignole 03:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still protected from GIPUs at least. I have noticed some wacky stuff going on with Wiki in general, though. Like, someone's changing/hacking it from the inside. Redirects didn't have automatic edit summaries. There's now "(Briefly describe the changes you have made):" above the edit summary box (amd we all now that wasn't there before). Categories no longer recognize "*" and empty space. It's madness! Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if semi-protection was somehow altered in all this. Perhaps someone felt being registered was enough. I certainly felt it should have been the exact opposite. (longer wait before one's "establishment" is complete) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Spidey Cast

If you wish to go ahead with that you can, you wouldn't be violating the 3RR. 3RR doesn't apply to an actual change in the article that hasn't been reverted. Unless someone decides they don't like it and reverts it back, your initial change doesn't constitute a "revert". Bignole 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, easy. He's just enthusiastic as are the rest of us. Couple that with his newness to Wikipedia and you find it easy to understand. My first couple edits were like him. If you go check the Nightmare on Elm Street film pages, I'm the reason their plots are novel long. I did that when I first came because there was literally no plot (just a blank spot) and I got over zealous with them. Speaking of which, I should probably go back and fix those sometime. Bignole 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you go to the Venom (comics) article and check the SPider-Man 3 picture. I cannot view images while I'm at work and I think they may have one of the images that violate Sony's copyright; one of those that were "leaked" (i.e. Stolen). Bignole 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to it, I can't view it till I get home but if they are using something they are not supposed to be using then it needs to come down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Venomspiderman3.jpg Bignole 17:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy finally admitted that he got the image from the ComicCon footage, and when he gave me a link to his source ironically it had been removed from the page (according to him, I can't view any "entertainment" while at work). I told him we can't use it because the footage was "private" showing, not public, and Sony has requested that all Venom images be removed. Hopefully he won't put it back up there, but you never know. Thanks for taking a look for me, since I'm kind of inhibited at work now that they blocked all images on Wikipedia. Bignole 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Mickey Mouse Club

Um, did you consider my remarks uncivil also, in which I asked the person with the "Get out" comment to make constructive contributions and respect the right of others to contribute as well? I ask because in reverting, you removed my comment as well - and also an innocent sentence from December about how many episodes were in certain seasons of MMC, which the IP person removed tonight after denying this morning that he or she removed the whole comment last night (but history shows otherwise.) Please look over the history again. If necessary I can live with my second request for civility being gone, but at the very least that sentence from December should be there, accurate or not (especially since we don't know for sure, either way). Also, a much more severe bit of incivility is the subject header at the bottom of the page. Regards. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins

I apologize, I was aware that you were attempting to reformat the article but I was not aware that these sections were a work in progress. I did not even know that you specifically added them. But I'd be happy to give you some suggestions. First, anything with the casting I would discuss in the cast section. Perhaps either placing the text after the description of the character or creating a few paragraphs at the bottom of the section. I generally dislike sectioning of the production section, however it's not always a bad thing. If you take a look at the articles I've brought to featured status on the Star Wars prequel films then you can see how I prefer to format film articles. I generally put the production section on top, above the synopsis, because otherwise the infobox will push the photos inside the synopsis section down and sometimes can create an odd "text mush". You will notice if you do so right now (or take a look at the records) that placing the production section make a "prettier picture" inside the synopsis section. :) The Filmaker 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• I thought the plot section was perfectly fine before, now it's gotten a little better because it is more comprehensive. You should have no trouble with it. The design section looks fine for now, I'll have to read through it all later on, but skimming through it I found that you should probably have a few more references as to appeal to a variety of sources. I'm not sure (I'll be able to read it later in the day) but a section this big on the design of the film looks a little uncomprehensive (short and sweet, namely the short part) but I'll read it through later and let you know whether that's the case or not. ;) The Filmaker 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to suggest that you keep the cast section spoiler free. As in more or less what we know within the first 30 minutes of the film (that's a rule of thumb, mind you). The reason being that generally it's best to keep the article as spoiler free as possible, but also some readers may log on to find the name of certain actors and than find that they are warned to steer clear of the section if they don't want the movie spoiled for them. :) The Filmaker 15:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The GA process is not as complicated as the FAC. All you have to do is keep working on the article. Don't even worry about the GAC (good article candidacy) for now. You just have to wait for another user to come along (who hasn't heavily contributed to the article before) and read the article than approve it for GA provided that it fits the criteria. They're a little more relaxed about, well, everything. They don't expect it to be a featured article. However, if they do fail the nomination they will leave notes in the talk page over why the nomination was failed. From what I can see, I think it can pass the GA. Not FA, yet, but GA. The Filmaker 17:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As another suggestion, I'd consider removing the "Sequel" section. While you may have better reasoning than me, I don't really see the point of providing information on the sequel in this article when we already have an article on the sequel itself. On top of that, we already link to the sequel in the infobox. Any particular reason why it should be kept? The Filmaker 17:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Doll Graveyard

Sorry about that. Someone decided to tag that as "getting back" at me and I forgot that rule. I'll put a hangon tag like I should. Sorry again and thanks for the heads up. -WarthogDemon 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons Template

Hey, Erikster. User:Bignole informed me that another editor, User:Piecraft, created his own template, Template: Horrormovie Icons. The problem is that this template is almost an exact copy of Bignole's Template: Horror Icons, which was created first as you'll probably remember from my documented "Horror Icons War" on my "Discussion page" [[1]]. I believe that creating the template is User:Piecraft's way of circumventing the protection on Template: Horror Icons that resulted after the edit wars on the template so that he can add his own "horror icons" to the list.

In addition, User:Bignole informed me that User:Piecraft replaced Template: Horror Icons with his Template: Horrormovie Icons on most of the horror-related pages such as Michael Myers (Halloween). Take a look at the history [[2]]. By the way, notice how User:The Scourge deleted Bignole's Horror Icon's template and then Piecraft placed his/hers on the page? Conspiracy? Sock Puppets?

Anyways, can you or another editor please delete Piecraft's template? It's just a sneaky way to get around protections in order to add things of your own.

(FF7SquallStrife7 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Killing Joke

I added that reference because before it wasn't clear what was actually going to be used. It seemed good to have a link to Ledger saying they literally handed him The Killing Joke and nothing else. Bignole

I went back and read the other source and it seemed as though Nolan was just agreeing with the interviewer that "the killing joke" would be a reference, but it seemed better to show that Ledger was actually given a copy of "the killing joke". I don't know. Bignole

I see what you're saying about the "tacted on" feel. I kind of felt that when I wrote it. I haven't read the entire interview, just the SHH stuff. If you don't want to include it that's fine, I just thought that it was a more clear picture of what they were doing when Ledger says they actually handed him a copy. It seemed more of an assumption early on, cause I don't think they had even finished writing when Nolan gave that first interview. Bignole 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could you please puit back my comment on the YouTube footage on Spider-Man 3's talk page? I thought that would link to images we could post here on Wikipedia. After all, everybody likes spoilers. Happy contributing! 70.58.211.220

Re:Batman Begins

I just glanced at it, but it's looking good. I put a plot tag in there, cause that thing was a novel. Also, I think the opening paragraph could be rewritten, with some things better placed on the page. When I have a better chance to actually read through it (it's kind of late right now, so I'm not all here) I'll see what/if anything needs to be done. It's funny you should be doing this because I was just going to start working on the first two Spider-Man films. Bignole 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have a feeling it is going to take me a long time because I have school and work, and also I am battling this Abu guy and his quick draw hand with image tagging. He believes everything is a violation of images just about. Bignole 16:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Garden State (film)

On two points, I first do not consider myself arguing interpretations, though maybe the anonymous user is, but instead correcting the anonymous editor on the events that transpired in the film, upon which he is basing his interpretations. While I mentioned interpretations in my original reply, I merely did so in an attempt to seem less arrogant or condescending as I went on to correct the details of the scene he was misinformed of. Secondly, I am lost as to what edit of mine you are referring to with your request not to edit another user's profane comment. If you could please clarify, thanks in advance of your reply. -- Viewdrix 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That was an automatic censorship on the part of my school's Internet security, from which I made that edit. I did not notice it as it occurred. As far as I can assume, when I decided to reply to two sections by editing the entire page, the security and censorship system went through the entire text of Talk:Garden State (film), and would have censored more if it had found any. It was not intentional, and I would have reverted it back myself if I had noticed and could prevent the security from striking again. I agree and follow Wikipedia is not censored, and I apologize for the confusion -- Viewdrix 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Fountain

Dab edit. I happened to be looking at your page and was like "wow, Hugh Jackman fan"..lol. So I went to it, knowing it was probably in good shape anyway if you were on it, and it was. I just put a "citation" tag where I thought one should be. I'm not even watching the page. I have a test, and two videos to make for school next week and my parents are coming into town today so I won't really be on here that much. Bignole 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, I have yet to see the movie, so I may not be able to add (much) to the discussion, but again, thanks for the heads up... btg2290 03:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fountain tree of life.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fountain tree of life.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled Superman Returns sequel

Help me out here. Someone's deleted this page twice already, and I have the entire page saved but it's getting tedious. Wiki-newbie 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent a note to the admin who deleted the page. He/she said it was because the film is only announced for production in 2007. His/her cite? Effin' IMDb. Wiki-newbie 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I just posted my saved article on his/her talk page, and I'd be curious to know if you can tell me who or where to notify an administrator better with film articles. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Fountain

Since I got kind of tired of working on superhero films (particularly Batman Begins) for a little while, I switched my attention to improving on The Fountain, which was the film article that originally got me hooked editing similar articles on Wikipedia. I've expanded the article in the past week or so, and I'd like some objective feedback on it, being the only major editor. Do you mind taking a look? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just honored that you'd even ask me. It looks good. Have you submitted it for good article status review? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. You MIGHT want to more fully credit the synopsis, a la ' Official Synopsis from XYZ production Co.' or such, but otherwise, I see no copyvio in a fully attributed quote which is more succinct than any other phrasing. ThuranX 21:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone over to look at The Fountain and had some questions/concerns. The opening paragraph seems to violate the NPOV policy a bit; there are certain things that read as opinion and don't have any source to at least substantiate them. I've tried comparing it to Revenge of the Sith and Halloween (film), and I think a couple sources validating some of the word usage would be good, or just rewrites if you don't have any sources. Are you going to do to the cast section what you did with Spidey? I think maybe moving that paragraph of the director's casting of Jackman to the top of the CAST section might look better. It seems out of place below the cast table. That's all for now, I haven't had a chance to look over the rest, but it appears that it's sourced well. Bignole 17:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would probably provide some reviews (Rotten Tomatoes) for his previous films, to prove they were well reviewed. The majority just seemed about the choice of words. Like, (not an actual example from the article) "The valley was as beatiful as a morning tulip in the Summer". Yes, this is a rather cheesy line, but the point is to show how my opinions have leaked into the description of the valley. I mean, if you can find critics that have actually said those things, or anything similar then I think it would be perfectly find to include it in the opening. But I'm just going by the other Featured Articles that tend to stay away from that type of descriptive introductions and just stick with the facts. Bignole 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man film series

Hey. (I know you said you're going tired of comics film articles, so I won't mind if you choose not to work on what I'm about to mention.) I recently submitted an article for deletion. It was basically a cruftified attempt at an article about the the Spider-Man series of films. However, while the consensus at the page was to delete, there was also a strong sentimentthat a proper article of the film series would be nice. I agree. but am not sure as to how I'd go about such an endeavor, especially with the first two films' articles in such an apparent state of disrepair. Any thoughts or suggestions as to how I should making Spider-Man film series? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please feel to look it over and bring up any possible concerns. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

If images of a leaked trailer, of which Sony has been trying to stop the spread, has been posted on the talk page of Spider-Man 3 via Photobucket or Youtube, do I have a right to remove the image links? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it violates any copyrights. I hope this answers your question, if not please tell me. Dep. Garcia ^{(Talk to Me)} 19:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should warn any posters involved before taking an action such as this. Also, it's good to include an edit summary describing your actions. Otherwise, other posters might get confused (like I did). No harm done, though. Not like the links were included in the article itself. We were discussing whether they should be there or not.--Kaonashi 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, the way I see it, I think it's important to leave a summary. I think information wouldn't be too much on this case. Previous versions are usually considered "outside Wikipedia", meaning if it was removed from the current version, it's good enough. Problematic content is usually just removed from the current version when there's an issue. I'm an admin. I can delete revisions from articles, but I can't remember seeing this being done before in a case like this, so I think there's no real need. But don't worry about that. I think it's more or less fine the way it is now, but feel free to add more info if you think it's a good idea.--Kaonashi 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace

Point well taken. I'll take a more discrete path in the future. Thanks for the advice. If Ace conducted himself in the same manner as you and others, there wouldn't be a problem. Reynoldsrapture 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One last thing, take a look at Ace's apology (or lack thereof) to Legs of boe. Also, read the last post I left for Ace about said apology. His attacks on me are evident. He'll try to spin it and say I'm "out to get him". That's ridiculous. I don't know why you all put up with him. I tried to be as articulate as possible, explaining my point to Ace. The rest is up to the fine administrators of Wikipedia. Hope they're watching. Reynoldsrapture 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, point well taken. As far as I'm concerned, this thing is over. I would like to point out the fact that I did compliment Ace, but maybe that got lost in the shuffle. Thank's for your help. Reynoldsrapture 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New Spider-Man 3 Poster

I blew up the picture around the 3 and there wasn't a box outline around it. It blended into the page fine, especially where the colors changed. I'm not sure what you guys are looking at. Bignole 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm at work....(stupid State department), I'll check it out when I'm at home and let you know. When I was home I used the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, and used the zoom to look at the "3". I'll try your link as soon as I can though. Bignole 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked, and I didn't see anything definitively "box-like" around the "3". It could be my eyes, or it could be just a trick of the image because it is so close to the pixels. Doesn't matter to me right now, it's still on my desktop..lol, but for the purposes of the article I say wait till Sony says "here ya go". Bignole 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "um no" edit to Casino Royale

There is no difference between the superherohype site and a googlenews feed - except of course that the Google page doesn't have adverts down the right hand side. Mark83 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. The thing that drew my attention was the exclamation mark - it just looks like linkspam. My fault for not investigating further. Mark83 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, the way spammers do write things like "best coverage on the web!!". Thanks for getting back to me. Mark83 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and regarding Transformers

Took me a while to think of a response, but I'll leave it at thanks. Batman Begins is a GA now, so I think the article can rest easy for a while. Certainly you're doing a good job on The Fountain and I'll try to get ROTK to FA, as well as sort out E.T.. Another thing, I reckon Transformers is in a good shape but do you have any suggestions? I mean, a picture is worth a 1000 words right or am I wrong? Wiki-newbie 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Poster

The Lenticular poster wasn't "user created". That was something the studio release, though you may mean that the image on Wiki was user created, because you had to have quicktime pro to actually download the lenticular image. I don't think that I said the lenticular better illustrates the article, and if I did then I didn't mean to; what I meant was that it doesn't do it any less than the new image. The film is mostly about his personal battle, his changing from light to dark. I just don't feel it's necessary to constantly change the lead poster just because a new one has come out, not until there is an actual "official" poster. In my opinion, it is going to open the door to other editors that want to change the lead poster to something "they" like better, just like Dam. I don't see any actual "contribution" of the new poster that isn't reflected by the current one, other than the time in which they were released. If Sony releases a new poster Saturday, are we supposed to change it to that one? The level of thinking by Dam is that we have to change it each time a new one comes out. I disagree with that line of thinking, it makes no sense, especially when you are uploading images that aren't really making any change in contribution, but are just new "eyecandy" for the reader. Bignole 06:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing it now will leave the option open later to simply say "well you allowed the other editor to do it, so why not me?" Right now it's just a preference, because "updating" a lead image, especially when the image itself is only a couple months old, seems irrelevant to the article. There isn't a change i t the flow of the article, how the article is perceived, nor is there some unrelenting increase in viewership because of the new image. There's no extra contribution, but there will be extra hands in the cookie jar latter when more images come out. Remember Spider-Man 2, that film had a load of posters that came out. We'll simply be forced to allow any editor to upload a "newer version" at will because they can simply point to the talk page and go, "you allowed them, you have to allow me...it's only fair." Bignole 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I know your point. And again, I have nothing against the new image, I peronsally like it. I don't see where a confusion with Venom would be for the current image, because the symbol doesn't change to white. My thing is about reintroducing teaser poster after teaser poster until we have a "theatrical" poster. I mean, technically even the "teaser" posters are "theatrical" posters, because they are in the theaters, but you won't see theaters replacing teaser poster after poster, not until they get the final poster, that is meant to accompany the film. I know we won't stop people from uploading new posters, but it seems like we are going to be providing them with "just cause" when they do it, because we are kind of saying, "if it's newer then use it". Are we going to be changing posters every other month till the film arrives? Oh well, if that's how it will be then I guess that's how it will be. I just think it's a waste. Anyway, you have a great Thanksgiving, and enjoy the time with your family (if you are home with them) and eat lots of food yourself. Later. Bignole 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shut up Bignole

Thanks for reporting his name, I appreciate that. I already reported him for sock puppetry. He seems to be Spiderman goofs who was making word for word the exact same edits. Bignole 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I just created a "Satisfied Customer" section of my page. Bignole 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA

Dude, right now, your watchlist must read like a comedy dialogue. there are threee of that guy's categories on CfD here. Please go vote on all. ThuranX 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: my eidts to spider man 2 page

Okay fine I give up. But there are 1,000s of movie atricles that have a section titled goofs. For examples, Independence Day (film), Jurassic Park (film), Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film), and there are countless more. I thought it was the standard to have them on wikipedia because almost every page had them, but I guess I was wrong and that those articles arent supposed to have them either. Forgive me for trying to contribute. Spiderman goofs 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel a lot better now. At first I thought my edits were being targeted and I thought it was wikipedia standard to have a goofs section on its movie and tv shows articles. I didnt know that they werent supposed to be there on any movie or tv show article. There are countless articles on movies and tv shows that still have those goof and errors sections. Spiderman goofs 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Creepy Crawler

Based on the categories created, the spelling and capitalization errors, I'm pretty sure that this is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Batman Fan. CovenantD 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyperion and Fountain

Its a matter of public record that Hyperion was at one time optioned and Aronofsky slated to direct it. I'm therefore not the only one who finds the appearance of a tree/spaceship in The Fountain smacks faintly of plagiarism (unless of course, Hyperion was assest stripped). I agree that more evidence needs to be provided. I will endeavor to find some. Famousdog 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Interstellar (film)

I am so so sorry for the blunder I made on that article. I was trying to use that format for another article and I guess, I accidentally saved it on the Interstellar article. So sorry. -- Hariharan91 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Happy editing to you too! ^^ -- Hariharan91 13:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Design

Well, some of it read as if it was OR, because a lot of that detail wasn't actually in the film. Each paragraph citation would be better, because when I looked at it, the citation for the Batmobile appeared to be going to the quote at the end, and not to the entire section. I haven't gone to the source to see where it comes from (i'm at school right now), but I don't like using one source for that information. I understand wording it in an "in-universe" perspective, because the plot doesn't detail it, but it probably isn't necessary, and can cause confusion (like I had) when reading, as someone reading may think that all of that information was given in the film, when I know they didn't describe the two sitting positions in the film, or that the jet engine did anything more than provide enough force to make a jump, not actually allow the vehicle to fly short distances. Bignole 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that what through me was that first paragraph of each that was in "in-universe" tone. I don't like using one sources as the sole supplier of the material, but if that's what you got then that's what you got. That's just a personal thing of mine. Other than the first paragraphs the rest look fine, I just don't know why you would keep them, other than to add more plot points. But that's apparently what you going for. Bignole 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bourne vandalism

You know, after I blanked the page, I realized that wasn't smart. What I was attemping to do was remove old comments under my old username. I'll just change the signature instead. Sorry for the confusion. Veracious Rey 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legs of Boe

I didn't not tell Legs he could self promote on article pages. What I told him was that if he wished to allow others to view his images than he needed to leave a message on his USER page, and anyone that visited could see that and ask him for the images. Obviously I didn't illustrate this to him clearly, because he's been on article talk pages announcing that he has images if people want them. I apologize for the disruption this has caused on the talk pages. Bignole 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to his talk page and saw that someone else had said something to him, and that was when I noticed he said "I was told I CAN tell others.." and I knew that he had taken what I said in the wrong context. I actually wrote one thing but you saved before I did, and I had to start over. lol. Hopefully I have cleared it up with him this time and he won't be reprimanded by anyone for that again. Bignole 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Go Ahead

You can go ahead and revert it, I just found the poster on one of the sites where I get many upcoming posters. Let me know if it was actually an official teaser poster or simply made using PhotoShop. Looking at it now, it is probably very unlikely that there would be a movie poster released a year before the film is released. Keep up the good work with upcoming films. --Nehrams2020 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have uploaded over 20 images in the past week or so from impawards.com, which is a great site for finding the large size posters. I'm still looking for other sites for older posters, whenever I get free time I add posters for articles without any. I used to use joblo.com, until I realized that they mainly harvest their posters from impawards. Thanks for showing me that source. --Nehrams2020 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

300

this is an annoying request. I cited the company. anyone could look it up at their official site if they don't believe me. I've never done citations. if you want to do it you are welcome.
mask, swords, helmet
Ephialtes
Leonidas
--DannyBoy7783 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Superman sequel

Hey, I have a question for you. Could you look at Superman: The Man of Steel (2009 film)? I don't know how much you are keeping up with it, but it's my opinion that the page currently violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy. Admins had to originally protect the "Untitled Superman Returns Sequel" page from being recreated, and that page carried the exact same information. At the moment, even the title of the film is subject to change because it wasn't "this is the title", it was "this is what we'd like to call it". It's only in discussion phase, they don't even have a script started. Even ComingSoon.net lists the film as "Untitled Superman Sequel", and I really don't think there is enough information to support it's own page; especially when they won't even start filming till well into 2007, and the movie isn't even scheduled for a release till 2009. That seems pretty crystal ballish to me, because anything can happen between now and then. Bignole 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on the WP:PM page. When I went through the sources a lot of them were from when Superman Returns first hit theaters, and they were simply asking "is there going to be sequel," or "would you like to be in a sequel?" This hardly confirms casting. I think the only think actually confirmed is the movie being made sometime in the future (does say when) and Singer finally getting a deal to direct. Bignole 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If it comes to that then I'll contact him. I'd rather not stir anything right now if I don't have to. Bignole 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's your call. Bignole 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation template for DVD Production Notes

Well I'm stumped for this piece of Jurassic Park information. Video or Book? Wiki-newbie 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards

Good job on the sources. Check this page www.mtv.com/ontv/movieawards/ma06 for the MTV awards. Hopefully that will drop you off at the 2006 awards...I can't view it here at work. Bignole 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go check it when I get home, I get off at 5pm. I'll see how my computer handles MTC.com. Never really been there before. Bignole 21:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I'm going to go see if I can get that MTV award. Bignole 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't get it from MTV, but I got it from another source. Bignole 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got the sources for the released date of the two version of the DVD, and the special edition that containted the comic book. The rest of that stuff (the last part) seems a bit like Original Research, at least the way it reads. Like someone that maybe couldn't find a copy of what they wanted and is doing a lot of assuming. Bignole 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/08/9708.php Bignole 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You had the chance to look at the above link? It talks about the sales of BB. It doesn't say anything about running out of stock, but it mentions the DVD selling almost 4 million it's first week, or something to that affect. Bignole 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer ComingSoon.net, they are a bit more well known. We'll use yours. Enjoy the party. Bignole 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Plots

You may want to voice your opinion over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Bignole 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman

I commented [3]. It has been 3 times deleted and has returned with a different title. Afd might be the way to go.--Dakota 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

plural links

From MoS:L: "When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]] — and easier to type." – flamurai (t) 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond, James Bond

This Casino Royale page is now up to 51kb. I just removed the "gadgets" section (which was 3 kb by itself) on the grounds of lack of Notablity. I'm pretty sure there are several other sections that lack notability as well, and many more that could be dramatically trimmed. What do you think? Bignole 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you were Deaf, and that really sucks that they don't have accessability for you. Does your theater, where you live, get captioned films or are you forced to go to a separate facility to watch movies when they come out? I'll see what I can do about the article's sections based on what you've suggested; I've already seen it so it won't spoil anything for me. I know what you mean about the articles spoiling the films for you though. I removed a bit about Harry, but not before following the link to a place that was detailing the whole movie. Don't care if it's true or not--backed out real quick. Right now I have to get ready for 3 finals for this coming week, go figure that two of them are ASL and Deaf Culture. I'll definitely have a lot of time after those test to sit down and go through all the sections and see what appears to be relevant. Bignole 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I know the difference; I just assumed it was the other. You mentioned "home for breaks", where do you go to school? That really sucks that you have to travel so far to enjoy a movie on the big screen. I guess that's the trouble with society; if you aren't in the majority than you sometimes it's harder to enjoy the same privileges. Thanks for the wish on the exams; ASL I know, just kinda of came easy to me..i think because of the visualness of it. I hope you get to see Casino soon, it's a really good Bond film. Bignole 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He did it because he didn't like my quotations around "the tell". I did the quotations because "the tell" is a poker term, and as it was it read like he was "telling" him something. Bignole 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good one. I don't think either one of us thought about that. There appears to be a growing animosity between us for some reason. He doesn't agree with some the things that I have changed. I'll put in the "poker tell", because I think that's something that can be easily agreed upon. Thanks for that one. Bignole 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ours has mainly been over the plot. First I tagged it for being too long (he disagreed). Then when I removed three things, two of which were "he's next seen" and one was "Casino Royale's major villain" and he wanted to label the plot "in universe". It's all over Talk Page. Bignole

I figured as much. I was sure you'd put your opinion in, for one way or the other, had you seen the movie. I've got to step back for a bit so I can study for these two exams I have tomorrow and Thursday. I think the deepest I'm going to get until Thursday afternoon will be reverting any vandalism, something I can do quickly without taking any time (if I'm on the computer). Hope that dispute between you and the other editor on The Fountain clears up. Bignole 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Schindler's List/prank

I updated the Schindler's List talk page with an explanation of the list/prank thing, could you please give your thoughts on why it was reverted? If you didn't believe list is German for cunning, I've clarified I'm not making it up, but if you thought something else please let me know so I can tweak my comment.Cantras 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ant-Man

Feh. It happens. I've fixed the dab page so it's at least up to snuff. You could always request expansion, but honestly, I wouldn't bother. Like Kid Flash, Mastermind (comics) and several others, it was probably created by someone who didn't have the time, energy, resources to make something like Robin or Speedy. My advice to you is either leave it—Not a bad article, really, especially for a stub—or try to expand the Ant-Man page a bit while merging that content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Removal for no reason

The trailer DOES exist, and showing a pic that matches the description ISN'T invalid. I dislike heavy-handed editing. I defy you to prove it's irrelevent. Case in point: NOTHING in the Halo 3 ESPN ad occurs in the game, which is months from release. No one' removed pics from it. Why? IT'S AN ACTUAL AD. The Transformers trailer is an actual ad, and therefore relevent. JAF1970 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:The Fountain

I have re-reviewed The Fountain.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman: The Man of Steel (film)‎

Seems like we have it again. This user keeps removing the deletion tag. Bignole

The word 'snitch' somehow feels appropriate at the moment. Believe me, I in no feel victimised, and am not seeking to be a nuisance. However, I do think the sequel deserves an article of its own. And as the imdb page reveals, this is the current title. At the moment Wikipedia is not up-to-date, all-be-it on a relatively unimportant article. Possecomitatus 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no answer on the Bond front. It was a counter-argument used to defend against the "Superman hasn't even got a script" argument

I could do all that, but to be honest I'm bored now, having already wasted far to much time on this. If Bignole had messaged me and explained, in polite, reasonable tones then I would have quite happily bowed to his presumably greater wisdom. But the frankly vaguely snotty tone of the message ticked me off a little. You both believe the article to be in violation of the thing. Fine. I think you're wrong, but there we go. Perhaps a reference to the working title on the Superman Returns page would be more appropriate. And incidentally IMDB is the most reliable movie web site. Certainly more up-to-date than Wikipedia. Probably because of stuff like this.

Lol fair enough. Although as a wannabe professional in the film business, I've found it invaluable and insanely accurate most of the time. Actually I quite like the idea of Aunt May is carnage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possecomitatus (talk • contribs) 18:20, December 7, 2006

I was just thinking about this title. It seems like a cheap trick to pull from the Batman sequel (i.e. name you film after your character's most famous monicker). Oh, and are we still going to look for Gotham City images? Bignole 15:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Gotham

I wasn't sure if we were still looking for one. I don't think we really do, because a City is a City, and because there isn't that much going for that section to really need an image I would assume. Bignole 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FF2

take a look at what I've done if you're still up? Also, LEX LETHAL is upset that after talking to you, I change things, so I think, and hope, he'll give it a try at working with us. We'll see what he does. ThuranX 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Favor

Could you take a look at the Talk: Smallville (Season 1)#External links for me, you always have good insight into things and I feel as though I'm being ganged up on over there. I'd appreciate any opinion you have about that. Bignole 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I find myself checking Wiki when I check my email at school in the hall. lol. I'm glad you liked Casino Royale, and that you finally got to see it. I have one more final and a 5 page paper. The paper's on an interview that I did, that was recorded on a DVD...I check the DVD only to find that it recorded just 2 seconds of the interview. Bignole 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The size thing is an illusion. Matt and Peregrine are adding as much "fluff" to the article so that they can get there way. There was a vote awhile ago about individual pages, and they wanted them, but the majority, including third party admins said that the episodes couldn't handle indivual pages. Now, they are attempting to reinstate what was voted against. Peregrine's already relinked all the headers to pages that were supposed to have been deleted, and they persist that 30 kb is too large, especially when Peregrine's own List of Smallville episodes page is 65kb. Bignole 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I left a message. I think the call to revoke GA status was probably rushed. I think there may be more of a concern for ambiguity than NPOV violation or OR. My suggestion was that it probably should have been brought to the Talk Page first, and if it couldn't be cleared up there, then take action. (In the middle of this), it seems he unchallenged it. Good luck with the article, you've done a lot of good work with it already. Bignole 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll check out what he says. What does my talk page look like to you? It works fine for me. I used 1 equal sign so that I wouldn't have the line underneath the "To Report Vandalism". Is it screwing up the page when you look at it? Bignole 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance, it seems Peregrine is not blanking and redirecting the Season 1 page to his "list of Episode" page. Bignole 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Thanks a lot Erik for your prompt response. Right after I msg'd you, I found that the problem was fixed, so I removed the msg not to bug you for no use. The Fair use link however still comes handy for the future. Thanks & Regards--Goarany 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Deja Vu Edits

You commented that I didn't use references for a recent edit. Not sure what you're referring to - My text only referred to a specific book, which I sited completely with author and title. There were some other wonky facts around my edit, on which I repaired some terrible English - but they aren't my facts and you can strip them out if you wish. Rossgk 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Read your followup about "original research". My comment that the plot is the same as the cited book is an observation. I'm not sure why it would warrant concern anymore than the 'unreferenced' points all around it. Every one of those bullets in that list at the bottom of the entry are identical observations about elements of the movie - the vehicle, the HLGold book etc... What gives? Statement of a fact is hardly research - this is the same as that... there's no subjective statement or opinion element. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rossgk (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Erik's "fan mail"

What happened with this guy (Soupy)? Seems like it came out of the blue, did you correct his vandalism somewhere else? Congratulations on the "Satisfied Customer" though, you still have to get one to actually create a name against you..lol. Bignole 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with 'Soupy'. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Some time ago, you voted against the nomination of Batman Begins as a Featured Article. The article has come a long way since, and I was wondering if you could take the time to share any suggestions you might have, either on my user talk page or the film article's own talk page. I do not believe that the article is yet ready for another FA nomination as I have improvements in mind. I hope that you will be able to share any insights you might have to help improve the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erik, and thanks for the invitation. It's greatly improved and is well on its way to Featured Article. I think the "Production", "Adaptation" and "Design" sections are well done. I think on the whole the writing is good but could be improved particularly in the plot section which is quite static. I think this could be helped by merging some of the sentences so that 2 short sentences become 1 longer sentence. I also think that repeated words create a stilted effect, for example " Bruce is freed the next day, and travels to the top of a mountain to begin his training in the art of crime fighting. Wayne completes his training, apparently overcoming his fear of bats, but is then challenged to execute a murderer." Also in the same paragraph "apparent" and "apparently" are both used. On the other hand where you have two unrelated ideas in one sentence, the result is awkward, as in the last sentence. Overcoming a fear of bats and being challenged to commit murder are unrelated, so rather than using one sentence to flow between two points with a common theme, you've got two unrelated themes. Also, in the space of one paragraph the hero is referred to as "Bruce" and as "Wayne". Here's what I would suggest to merge the sentences, reduce the repetition, and so on. Wayne is freed the next day, and travels to a mountain-top facility to begin training in the art of crime fighting, and in the process overcomes his fear of bats. Challenged by Ra's to commit a murder, Wayne hesitates..... etc".

There are examples of slang terms, which should be avoided. For example "completely in the pocket of Falcone" could be, "completely under Falcone's control". Another one is "development hell". I'm really against jargon. There's a place for it but it doesn't set the right tone here. I think we should strive to be scholarly rather than merely clever. This is a particularly bad one to use because it links to an article that is tagged with "original research" and "cleanup" tags - zero credibility. Could the same be said of "rebooted" (in the lead)? The article it links to has no sources - I don't know enough about the subject to be sure if it's jargon, but it looks like it. I think the lead should be kept very clean and clear and people shouldn't have to click on links to see what words mean, as it breaks the concentration. Leave that for the article but keep the lead simple. (I can't find "rebooted" in the article anywhere. Maybe I missed it but it shouldn't be in the lead if it doesn't appear in the article anyhow as the lead is meant to summarize, rather than present concepts in isolation. )

The critical reception needs to be beefed up. My main criticism would be of the lead paragraph, which should be a summary of the article. Half of the lead is related to the film's reception and is roughly equal to the depth of coverage this topic is given in the article. I think it's the wrong balance as the topic is treated with too much emphasis in the lead, and too little emphasis in the article. Comments such as the film was "darker" in the lead paragraph - I can't find anything that obviously supports this in the article. I can understand what you're trying to say there, but I don't think it comes across as well as it could.

Images. Any fair use image must be carefully chosen. I would ensure that the image description page contains a clear rationale as to why that particular image was chosen, rather than any generic rationales. Something along the lines of "this image is important in discussing the film because it shows (and then be very clear about what you consider it shows). Image captions in the article are also important because they very subtly say "this is why this image is here, it's really important", and maybe the text of the article needs to be expanded so that the image fits in with the text. You can bet your life that in FAC someone will challenge them, so you should be careful not to give anyone a reason for questioning them. Their necessity should be patently obvious. For example Image:Gordon-batman-rooftop.jpg with the caption Batman and Gordon assume new responsibilities is particularly weak. I've seen the film, but if I hadn't seen it, I would be wondering what the point is.

I think the article is very, very good, which is why I've commented at such length here. It has a great deal of potential. You've done some excellent work there. Rossrs 10:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to tweak the plot per his suggestions, may need a bit more..not sure. Should we remove "reboot" from the lead, or discuss it further in the "production" section? I'll see if I can just use a better word for now. Maybe just simply "restarted the continuity of the franchise"?? Bignole 16:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure, because I wasn't clear if he wanted it out or just more content about it elsewhere. Good luck on your finals, I have a paper due tonight and a final Thursday (most of mine were last week). I just started a new project The Detective, so that's going to be one of my priorities here soon. I got tired of having the red link on my user page. Bignole 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt. We have several goodgreat editors working on these articles, so I have no doubt we can whip these articles into the best shape they can be in. Bignole 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what you were going to do about that. I'll get rid of it and just point him to my talk page when he has questions (unless you are willing to answer any rumormill questions he may have). Bignole 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

300

It seems like the article is really your baby, but I was wondering if it'd be fine to start trimming the article's production and vision sections for a full chronological article given the approaching release. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 15:26, December 11, 2006

Um, ok mate. I'd rather stick to my Transformers and Bionicles. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd basically consider the article done. Until then, copyedits, as well as a Response and DVD section. Wiki-newbie 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is the possibility of a Soundtrack article. Still, post me some of those excellent Miller information and I'll dig up the suitable stuff. Wiki-newbie 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallville

Hi. Do you find pages like Hothead (Smallville episode) objectionable? - Peregrinefisher 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curiuous, because you said discuss on talk page with your revert, and we know how Bignole and I feel, so I'm wondering how you feel about including stuff like a guest cast in TV articles. - Peregrinefisher 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you feel the same as Bignole. I guess all I can say is that i feel the individual pages are importanant for a few reasons. A summary that someone not familiar with the show can easily follow requires a bit more info than the season page has. Also, the guest stars work better as bulleted lists, but when you try and fit them in to the season page, it makes it too tall. And having the external links on a per episode basis will allow people to find the imdb and tv.com versions with less scrolling and clicking. - Peregrinefisher 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry

Sorry for funking up the spidey stuff. Guess I have lots to learn there. Please forgive my shitty comments. Boggydark 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cleanups

Took care of it just before I read your message. Also took care of the "ballbusting" again. I directed Harley to the archived discussion we had and explained it all. I also told the Anon about ballbusting. Have you read those articles, ballbusting and it's affiliates? They are rather crude. Bignole 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm sorry, but I would probably not be able to control the laughter for hours if I came online and found "Today's Featured Article: The ballbusting". I can see it now, with citations from local dominatrix clubs. I think if Wikipedia had featured articles like that, it would say a lot of things. 1. Look, you can find encyclopedic content in anything. 2. They are corrupting our youths (I'm sure someone will say that) 3. We have some seriously lonely people in the world that could actually turn that article into a FA class. Bignole 21:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I knew that Die Hard was based on Roderick Thorp's Nothing Lasts Forever, and I'm a really big fan of Die Hard. To me, DH is one of the best action films ever made. So I wanted to read the book, NLF, but then I found out that it was a sequel to The Detective (which also had a movie). So I ordered both of the books (haven't read them yet, I have to finish a King book that I am reading first). Then I got tired of looking at a red link on my user page, so I searched WikiProjectNovels for a template and created the page myself. I've been trying to get general information that won't spoil the book for me before I read it, then after I do I'm going to fill in the rest. I moved everything to a sandbox because someone came through and removed all the sample sections because they didn't have any information. I'm going to work on it in my sandbox and then transfer. I don't think I'll have too many editors working on the article, it's been red on "Nothing Lasts Forever" and "Die Hard" forever. Bignole 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I love King. I loved the "Dark Tower" series, it was awesome. Right now I'm reading his old short story book "Skeleton Crew" (almost finished it). I read "Cell" when it came out awhile ago, that was good. I was going to jump back into those two Dan Brown books that are a lesser known than DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons, they're "Deception Point" and "Digital Fortress", but now that I'm working on The Detective I need to read that so that the page doesn't sit in limbo forever. It's a really thick book so it may take me a bit since I don't tend to read while I'm at home all that much, but since Breaks coming up I should have more time to do that. Bignole 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Apocolypto

Thank you! At the moment, I was just planning to add in informaiton from this one article I was reading. I may be able to add in more from the other references later, though. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Help me understand

I have added a link to some movie review pages that were biblical in nature like The Nativity Story. The link was to a page on GraceCentered.com, which is a Christian website that has news and movie reviews in addition to other things. The authors write for newspapers around the country, have been published by top publishing companies and many hold Ph.D's in Theology and New/Old Testament. Their opinions, when it comes to movies about biblical text are very valuable in terms of biblical and historical accuracy. I don't understand why you would remove a review by a Bible scholar from a website that is on the same level as Christianity Today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

hay

nonsense? I here this stuff all the time, on tv too. Boggydark 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

don't call me son, pops. who do you think you are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boggydark (talk • contribs) 23:26, December 13, 2006

SHEEEEEEEEEYYAAAAAAAA!!! had to get that out. Boggydark 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I bid you "good luck" in this for the evening. I have my last final tomorrow morning and I can't be up all night trying to decypher/help/keep my sanity with Boggydark. Bignole 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

congrats on yur finals being done, and I really dislike this guy. I am beginning to suspect that this is deliberate trolling by an experienced user with a grudge. ThuranX 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

After a few more exchanges with him, and a review of his contribs, i DO believe he's an experienced editor screwing with us. If he keeps this up, i'll hit Checkuser and the other Admin pages, unless you beat me to it. ThuranX 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't followed up yet, and he isn't doing any editing tonight. Either he grew tired for a few, quit totally, or is waiting and biding his time... we'll wait for if/when he does it again. ThuranX 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been having trouble following this, but I've been trying. Can someone please file a report at the Incident Board? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirates

ComingSoon hasn't changed the spelling of the title, and they recently released two photos from the film. I'm beginning to distrust this foreign site's poster. Bignole 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone put the apostrophe initially, for grammer. BOM.com tends not to actually update their information, as they also had a budget for this film before the shooting began. They were using a source that said the budget would be 450 million for the two movies, and they automatically assume that you just divide that in two. They also still list Superman Returns with a 260 mill budget. Anyway, my point is has anyone thought the poster was a fake? It wouldn't be the first time, we've had fake posters with Spider-Man that looked real enough. It wouldn't be hard to take the teaser poster and just add some text to it (if you knew what you were doing). I'm not suggesting another move, because it's probably still going to be bad enough will people determined that it doesn't have the apostrophe. Bignole 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain

Don't be a hypocrite! Do not delete a passage without proper discussion.

The passage stays as stands until discussion takes place:

"The end represents a catharsis much different or contrasting to the end presented in Steven Soderbergh's 2002 film adaptation Solaris (film), i.e. without the idea of rebirth for both persons, Hugh Jackman's character mourns the death of his better half. Thus, the conclusion in the finale of The Fountain is not represenative of a the alchemical wedding of Jung; instead, The Fountain is a film about Freudian grief and loss where the "mother" is buried. The mother symbolized by the World Tree is symboliccaly buried in the unconscious mind, so that the father of the conscious mind may live. Thus, it could be argued that the film represents the director's rejection of Kabbalah or Jung's Alchemy, i.e. a man unwilling to embrace his mother at the expense of his father. The death of the woman symbolizes that this connection has been severed and that only memory remains." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.165.71 (talk • contribs) 18:24, December 14, 2006

The Mummy 3 (film)

I think we should leave it at this for right now since there has not been an official released name yet. Once the title is announced (the film might also be canceled if it doesn't get the cast it wants), then we could move it to the correct one. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:30 Days of Night

		Totally Awesome
		A "Did You Know" Award for a mention in the "Did You Know" section in SlashFilm. That's totally awesome. Bignole 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem. Someone else reverted him, I just warned him. Yeah, I copied your page. lol. If you check my history it says "totally stole this from Erik". Bignole 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You see this Bloodiest Day of shooting. I know you work on the page. Bignole 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Crap, I meant to send you the SuperHeroHype link, where they briefly discuss the video. If you can get there you can see it, for some reason SHH won't load up on my computer right now. Anyway, they don't really say anything in the video other than "here's a body without a head (which is kinda a duh before he says it) and "there's a helicopter, I'm not stupid enough to get on" and "this is going to be the bloodiest, goriest scene in the film". The last part is pretty much the whole thing, and it's on SHH. I don't know how much you could actually use of it, maybe nothing, but they did ask for 1 gallon of blood for one body. Bignole 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT INCUR THE WRATH OF BURR BOB!

HHMMMMM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr Bob (talk • contribs) 14:27, December 15, 2006

Spider-Man 3

Considering I've been remolding 300 and The Dark Knight, do you think we should do the same for Spider-Man 3? The Villains section only exists at a time when nothing about the story was confirmed. I'd like to merge it with Production. Do respond quickly, because I need to go to bed soon, but I'll probably perform it tomorrow. Wiki-newbie 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be keeping it cool for Spider-Man 3, and I'll be trying to apply it to ROTK, as the Post-Production stuff isn't very linear. But do note, I did it very early on for Transformers, but I'm not going to apply it to the 'Transformers on screen' section as there's no other way I can approach it. Anyway, have a nice Christmas. Wiki-newbie 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I've said before that I feel the likes of Sandman, Venom and Goblin correspond more to screenwriting. Wiki-newbie 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that there has never been a discussion involving this articles status. I don't think we've ever issued it to a peer review let alone a Good Article review. It doesn't matter if the film is yet to be released, because Lost is a featured article that is still on the air. Have you ever thought about sending the article in for a peer review? I think a few tweaks to the format (which is being taken care of right now) are the only thing that should hold us back from a peer review. I think it would be good to get some outside views on the article's status. What do you think? Bignole 16:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what Wiki-newb was talking about, the future film class. I think there should probably be some gray area to that since the film is in post-production. I was going to suggest maybe a simple review to atleast get some feedback for the article, since you need a lot of it once you start heading down the "FA" status path. Bignole 16:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. Bignole 17:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this data-overlap thing too. stop postingthere for a few, see if it cataches up. ThuranX 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, I had to step out to get some last minute christmas gifts, and stuff. I came back to all this. If you go back through the history, and read through, it's quite funny from an outsiders point of view (obviously not to you guys since it was happening to you, I'd be rather frustrated if it happened to me). Once it get's all square I'll start commenting on the issues that you guys have brought up. Bignole 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Spiderman rating

Well, I wasn't planning on reverting it back if someone else disagreed (if ACS had I might have gone for pushing the 3RR), but thanks for the heads up anyway. Hbdragon88 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Belated

Don't mean to be a butt here, and I know you're kidding me some, but explain to me how my thoughts are belated? I mean, the importance level wasn't changed yet. This is so frustrating. Everytime I commment on this article, you guys nip at my heals (some biting harder than others). It's incredibly discouraging to those of us who really want to help. Again, help me understand why my post was not up to standards? Veracious Rey 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Erik. I completely understand, though I'm sure I'll stumble a few more times before the end. Maybe you could pass along your wise advise to ThuranX. He'll heed your wisdom before mine, me thinks :) Veracious Rey 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dark Dragon Flame

It was spam not contributing anything to the article there is no real point in keeping it, I'm not going to say that I should had stayed away from it but it was stupid seeing something like that on a talk page, however my point is valid if you keep them there they will turn it into a forum, don't you think it's true?-However I admit my mistake and won't reply to anyone that does to keep it from becoming a full argument.-Dark Dragon Flame 19 December 2006

Re:The Fountain (redux)

I think what I'll do is read through, and as I'm reading, drop a line here with something new that I see. This way I won't forget something if I wait till I've read through it all. So, the first thing that seemed out of place was in the production (I skipped the plot because I haven't seen the film). It was the ending of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second.

The start date for production was set to begin in summer 2002.[6]

Production was set for late October 2002 in Queensland and Sydney, Australia.

It just seemed to jump from talking about setting a date for production of "The Last Man" to setting a date for "The Fountain". There isn't an explaination (don't know if you don't need one, or can't find one) as to why the title changed and why the production was supposed to start in the summer of 2002, but was pushed to October. Am I missing something? Bignole 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If they just got delayed or something, I'd just write something in that will help transition those two sentences, because you say it was set for this date, but immediately follow with a different date. I want to say "if you can't find out why, then just say 'for unseen circumstances it was pushed back to..', but I think that'll draw criticism on the review boards. As for the title, I think saying "now titled The Fountain" sounds like it was originally titled The Last Man (which you said it wasn't, it was just a working title). Maybe something like "now officially titled The Fountain". Also, why did Cate Blanchet leave? It just said she was gone, did she leave for a reason (like because the film was canceled when Pitt left)? Bignole 18:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be one of those tricky things. I saw your changes, and they look good, it's just one of those hard choices for wording. I don't really see any better way to put it. It's hard for me to read through the sources because I'm at work (dumb state computers and their firewalls). My only concern is that if they had contracts with the studio, can we say that the studio released them from their contracts when they ceased production, because saying "released ..... duties" sounds that way. It may be one of those things that we'll have to wait for another review to respond about (if they do). Now, on to the "casting" section. The rest looks good IMO. Bignole 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Themes" should probably come after "Visual effects" and "Musical score", seeing as VE and MS are production material, and "Themes" requires the film to be finished as you are using a people's interpretations upon viewing the film (minus Afronsky's). Bignole 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article looks real good, the rest of it flows well. Could "Graphic Novel" be part of "Marketing"? Bignole 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First thing would be to find Ebert and Roeper, seeing as they are top of the food chain when it comes to critics. It's probably also look for any reviews in highly acclaimed science fiction and fantasy magazines, seeing as the film is promoted as a SciFi/fantasy film. It might be good to get some criticisms from religous venues because of all the religous overtones (Tree of Life is kind of in your face..lol) for their experiences with the film if you can. I think once you get some more critiques it will be easier to balance the section. Bignole 20:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was no problem. I just hope that whatever I said was helpful to you. The only thing I find weird is that you don't get a notification that an article is "Good" on the actual article, it's on the Talk Page. It think it should be on the article, so that we can be proud of every accomplishment in Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm sure that if/when I finally finish "The Detective" that I'll be knocking at your cyber door with a "please...". I'll be home next week so I'm sure that I'll have plenty of time to finish Skeleton Crew and get deep into "The Detective", won't have much else to do. Let me know if you need anymore help with anything else. Bignole 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Movies

Actually I went searching for yours, but they kept directing me to Orphans and Brother's keeper. It wasn't a Dracula film. I have Dracula films, original and new ones. Bignole 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I usually try googling key words and then going to Amazon to check out the films. For me, since they were genre specific I tried going through all of Amazon's "vampire" related films, but it was kinda a long list. The closest I came to the two movies was the second film, but I haven't bought the movie yet to find out if it is the right one. It's about sister vampires and them kidnapping a couple on a trip. I don't remember the woman specifically, but I think that was why the man was trying to leave, to get back to his wife. Not sure, my problem is that whenever you look for vampire movies that are female centric you get porn. I would try to remember some more details, other than that, maybe a film forum where all people do is talk about films all day. Sometimes you run across people that have seen some obscure films. Bignole 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!, I'll check that out. Bignole 11:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I got immediate responses from that forum. One I am positive is right, and that was the one with the two vampires. It is Vampyres, there was a trailer for it on IMDb and some of the scenes were what I remember. Though, I don't remember it having so much gratuitous sex..lol. The other, about the father and son was suggested to be A Return to Salem's Lot. I was going to order that movie anyway, because I have the original, so I'll know if that is what I remember soon enough. I couldn't find images or a trailer for it to verify, but the plot sounds about right. Hope you had a great Christmas. I'll be heading back home (my home in Tallahassee) tomorrow. Hopefully it won't be raining so hard like it was when I came to my parents. Bignole 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the forum post you added when you asked the Anon if he was Sun22, and it appeared as if he was by reading it. I love how it was like "this is why you can't trust Wikipedia, and why IMDb is so right...". My holiday was alright, I got a lot of movies, as I usually do; expanded my Clint Eastwood and Steven King collection. Congratulations on your 21st (when it arrives I mean). I didn't "reap the benefits" when I turned 21, but that's more because I don't drink. I'm glad it's been relatively calm on here these past few days. I hope you have a great birthday, when it finally does arrive. Bignole 20:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance debate

In case you're wondering, I've decided to give importance and quality scale ratings the Future class for those films yet to be released. Wiki-newbie 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. Anyway, if this answer is the best option, why didn't someone think of it sooner? Could have saved alot of typing from all of us. Veracious Rey 18:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That the article is Future isn't in question. My question is why remove the mid level importance rating? Even if you do, the article is still rated future. Why not leave the mid level rating to serve as an impetus for change? Wiki-newbie needs to clarify his stance. Veracious Rey 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. Now that you mention it, mid level does sound like original research. Maybe we should make the case that all future class films should be absent an importance rating. How in the heck would we do this? Veracious Rey 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I did snap at him a bit; I've already replied to his talk. Anyways... the 'ace' comment... man, that just hurts... Hope finals went well. ThuranX 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aliens

Could you read Talk:Aliens (film)#New plot‎. There was an edit war, one which I am being accussed of breaking the 3RR and being reported, over the plot of this film and I'd like your opinion about the new plot that I am proposing. You can see the plot as it stands, and if you go back in the history you can see the other editor's plot. It is his, Shadow something, opinion that if you change someone's wording, even if it isn't changed to the original text, but simply rewritten altogether, it's still considered reverting. Anyway, I'll be going home tomorrow, so if I'm blocked then it will be at a time when I won't be near a computer; I'd just like your opinion on the comparison of plots because I know you always keep an unbiased eye. Bignole 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and I've made some corrections when you get a chance to look at it again. It don't care if this plot is accepted or not, but since Shadow wanted a "vote" I figured the best thing to do was write a condensed plot and open a feedback channel for everyone to voice their opinion. I probably should have proofed it before I put it in there, and Shadow's persistance at trying to get me blocked was steaming me a bit. Bignole 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:News Access

I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the info. I saw what you did for BP, that's pretty cool, I wasn't aware of all that, and I'm sure it's hard enough to find things all the way back in 1993. Good job. Well, I'm off to take my 10 hour trip back home. Bignole 11:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah the drive sucked. It was raining hard the whole way so I pretty much couldn't see the road the whole time. I even missed 2 exits because of it. Yeah, well the extent of my edits will be quick reverts to any vandalism I see, and replying to messages so people don't think I'm ignoring them. I'm on my parents computer, which means that I won't be on for longer than 10 minutes or so here and there. I figure when I get home next Wednesday I'll probably be on for 2 hours reading everything from the past week so that I can catch up to everyone. Oh, on funnier news, if you haven't read the "Aliens" talk page, Shadow responded with "I don't have to tell you what's wrong, it's basic english taught in the 5th grade..yada yada.." lol. I know it needed copyediting, which I didn't do, but apparently he believes plots should be "spiced up" for dramatic effect. I see if I can read through the SP3 changes before I'm forced off the computer. Bignole 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had some time to read the entire SP3 article and it looks real good. Bignole 15:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: SM3

Well then, if his statements continue to rehash his same old invalid arguments, can we remove his comments as soon as he posts them? We've given him multiple opportunities to understand how citations work. I think now he's just being beligerant and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'm beginning to see what you guys have to deal with constantly. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehh...I guess I was a bit late there. Anyway, the more warnings, the better. I blocked him for 31 hours now. Nishkid64 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. If I don't talk to you in a couple of days, have a Merry Christmas. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but ace can be hurting in his comments. Let me ask you one thing. If the comment is wiki bad on wiki, then should it be so? Boggydark 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've submitted the problems on the talk page for review. See the SM3 talk page, those two mental midgets got throwh into a sac and fought last night; I've had it, let the Admins sort out their idiocies.ThuranX 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm past another round of warnings ans talkings. everyone on that talk page, even Ace, has been as patient as possible with both of those clowns. It's time for an admin to step in. ThuranX 17:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha... makes sense. And there IS a link on the SM3 talk page to the Admin posting, so we'll see what comes of it. ThuranX

I saw the recent post on the Talk Page, I'm going to DVR the channel and watch the clips tomorrow. I don't know if you are going to watch it or not, but I'll be able to either substantiate or dismiss any claims anyone makes about the clips (if there are any actually worth mentioning in detail, which I would only believe if they showed something new of Venom, since he's such a high profile character). I highly doubt we'll have anything specific to add to the article; most likely we'll justkeep what's already there just adjust for to past tense. Bignole 00:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I come on every few hours or so, and I noticed there were like a dozen comments between him and your guys..lol. I think ThuranX took the right step. Bignole 00:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns sequel cites

Would it be ok for me to dump some citations for you from when I created the article onto your sub-page? Hope you enjoyed Christmas. Wiki-newbie 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, a future film to gather cites for? There's The Hobbit, but I'd rather stay clear until New Line prove they were wrong to dismiss Jackson. You wouldn't mind digging starting a past films page though? I mean, we're both fans of Schindler's List. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of what you did for Black Panther so I was curious because for Schindler's List because it was being developed around the same period. Still, I just need to dig some Spielberg book about the film. Still, a past films page would be a good recommendation because there are all sorts of interesting stuff to find: Batman Begins, Superman Returns or Cancelled Superman films could benefit with cites for the development hell, and I'd throw in Peter Jackson's aborted 1996 version of King Kong too. Still, how far does this archive of yours go? It'd be nice if it could go back to the 1950s for films like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Still, for my general Internet reach, do you know of any site with an easy to look through archives other than IGN? Wiki-newbie 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So do I go to Variety, or go to Google and type site:Variety <keywords>? So this goes up to 1977 ai? That's cool. Regarding Batman Begins books, I'd recommend Scott Beatty's Dorling Kindersley guide as it's got a map of Gotham useful for the design section. The Art of Batman Begins is cool too with images of a plasticine Tumbler. I may try to find these at a library, though I'm unlikely to upload those images: I've only mastered copy and pasting the Internet. Wiki-newbie 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I know one of the movies

Hi, today I read your post about the two movies and I think that I can help you with one of them (the 1st one). It is the Power of One. The black man (played by Morgan Freeman) is a prisoner in a internment camp in South Afrika during WWII (I dont remember if the Blacks were criminals or simply arrested because they were members of German-allied tribes)). He trains PK boxing. PK and the German Doctor (the only white prisoner) misled the Camp commander (a Germanphile) to let the Black prisoners to sing a song under guise of praising the white goverment (or something like that). In reality they teach them a song about freedom. A white guard who hates Blacks forces the black trainer to clean his boot with his tongue (of a piece of shit). As the prisoners are singing in their native tongues (PK is the only white able to understand) the guard catches the trainer alone and beats him. The trainer proudly translates the song "we are free" (something like that) and the guard mad as hell beats him severly. The trainer dies in the arms of PK as a free man. Great movie but it is diffrent from the book. Flamarande 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Iron Man

The paragraph about Afghanistan is this:

Favreau adds that the origin will be updated, with Afghanistan replacing 'Nam, that Iron Man will don his classic red-and-gold armour (the original clunky grey armour will feature briefly), and the villain will be The Mandarin, a Chinese megalomaniac who wields ten souped-up alien rings, although they might not make the cut.

Anyway, it came straight from Favreau, so no speculative worries. If you're wondering, Favreau details about "the assumption that that same technology is what's avaliable to villains", on adapting The Mandarin. Btw, I cleaned up the plots of King Kong and Superman Returns. I've never heard of Voltron either. Wiki-newbie 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bond 22

I was going to warn him but I saw that you had already given him his final warning 3 minutes before he did it again. Oh, and how can Wiki-nembie not know Voltron??? lol. Bignole 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think many people might think of it as a Power Rangers (as Americans know it) rip-off, or really it's original name Super Sentai. Mainly because of the "giant robot formed by smaller ones", ala Megazord. Bignole 21:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fight Club "original research"

If those scenes occur in the film, how are they "original research"? If something's in the film, that's a fact about the film. Should we delete the plot as "original research"? Some guy 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Boggydark

See my recent comments on the Spider-man 3 talk page. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)