Talk:Black Christmas (2006 film)

Plot summary

I believe the plot section has all messed up. There are too many sentences joined together and some of them have mixed to an extent that they make no sense. If somebody can, please correct this section.

Amol Shah 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC):::

Not so much as a summary as a play by play. WAY to long for a movie whose plot was not that involved. s Let's shorten down the summary some, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.184.4 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's full of grammar errors, and crammed packed full of unnecessary details... Especially comments such as "rich bitch"... Are they really necessary? Unconscious (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. Is that the novelization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've hacked it down to something readable; I cut the entire section about the murders, its standard slasher fare, and kept the bits that differentiate this film from others -Bazzargh (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary looks like it's been written by a fourth grader. There's a little something called compound sentences. Also whoever did the characters section needs to learn what the hell a table is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.186.94 (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mýa's in Black Christmas

She plays Britney Soring and will be killed in the movie [1]

Never mind. She only appears in the original cut.

What you mean by original cut? That's the 1974 verson. Mya wasnt even a gleam in her parents eye yet. Unless of course you mean the fact that they made 4 different versions to this flick. Man, I can't wait for the dvd.74.195.3.11 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/CrystalLoweBlackXmas.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/Laceydead.jpg

why cant I put these two pictures to be seen on the website???

You'd have to upload them onto the Wikipedia server while tagging them properly in regard to their copyright. Then you'd have to use wikiformatting to insert them into the article, not BBCode like you used here. 75.2.6.207 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Redundancy

I was reading through that section and noticed that the fact that Glen Morgan either wrote/produced or directed any Final Destination film is mentioned at least three separate times, as well as the fact that he is married to one of the actresses, Cloke, being mentioned at least twice throughout.

I didn't want to go in and remove some of the instances myself since other editors tend to revert that (a feeling of being overly possessive and territorial in regard to articles they edit I suppose) so addressing it here for consideration by the collective editors who have interest in this article to consider revising as they see fit. 75.2.6.207 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the extra two or three references to Final Destination, and commented out another redundant bit of trivia. -Elizabennet 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who asked you? Just ignore it. I did.74.195.3.11 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a collective effort, mate. If you're going to ignore anything that's wrong with the article, don't be an editor. I made a major revision of the trivia section, but people are still adding random crap to it, so keep an eye out.--Agent Aquamarine 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

body count

what happened to the spoiler that included all the deaths? i read it earlier tonight but now i can't find it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.101.130 (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

I added one. But why do people delete it?

Its deleted for the simple reason that it is just rehashing what the plot tells. Also death lists (the F13 series and the FD series excepted due to the emphasis on deaths and not plot) are very unencyclopediac (especially in list form) and should not be in Wiki. Jamesbuc

Synopsis and Plot

Are both really neccessary? ONEder Boy 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, WTF is with that "plot" - that aint no plot, it's the whole dang script!! 220.238.131.240 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fuck"

Has anyone counted how many times the word "fuck" was used in this film? At least 20, I think. Maybe much, much more.

Why does it matter? If you think 20 is alot, go check out Blair Witch Project. It's said at least 133 times. But, why do you care, 20 is very little compared to how some films are.

"Fuck" was said way too fucking much by a group of supposedly respectable young ladies. You cast a bunch of cute girls, then make them utterly unattractive by having them say "fuck" ad infinitum. Varlaam (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality

I'm going to fix up the trivia section, the spelling and grammar in it is deplorable. I'm not going to look for errors in the other sections, so that's up to you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.149 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Differences From Original

Should there be a section where we can post the differences from the original here? It'll be way useful, but I'm not sure of all of the differences, so I'd like to know if there'd be some assistance with me posting this. StupidityxLEAK (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Khe Sanh

The Battle of Khe Sanh element is not developed at all. Why is there so much emphasis on the Raveonettes poster with Peter Lorre on it? Varlaam (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The poster is based on the poster for Mad Love (1935 film), a great movie by the way. Varlaam (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Production expansion

The production section in this article is way too short and only gives very few information on the film's production, this should be expanded in more detail with more information added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Christmas (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.horrorreview.com/essay/egblackchristmasessay2006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims and original research

Please stop adding unsourced claims that the film has been "disowned". Also, Wikipedia does not pronounce films as a success or failure; we merely report how much money that they grossed. It is original research to characterize a film as a success, and it is likely original research to characterize the reviews as positive or negative based on your own interpretation of a Rotten Tomatoes score. Instead, we should flatly state the facts of the matter without interpreting the data. I don't understand why we would even need to interpret a review aggregator; the whole point of using Rotten Tomatoes is that they've already interpreted the data for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree NRP. Been finding a lot of those kind of things in different articles lately and I keep on having to delete them.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Christmas (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109053213/http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-12-11 to http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-12-11#film5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Status and the Original Film

This article is looking great, although it would be nice to see the original film get this much love and attention as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost GA ready. Just a few things that need to be added. I've noticed that this article doesn't have any information on Robert Mann, the actor who portrays Billy Lenz. I also think that there needs to be some interviews from the actors/actresses from the film added to this article as well as it's mostly comprised of interviews with the director. If this information is available then it should be included. All in all this is looking more and more GA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Christmas (2006 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the original Black Christmas, curiously made in both the infancy not only of slasher films but of the Cinema of Canada in general. So I'm kind of interested in reviewing.

Well-written:

1a In the second para of the lede, it seems we already have too many sentences starting with "The film". "director Morgan" can simply be "Morgan"; same goes with Wong.
Plot- "Billy gets Constance pregnant"- if he was raped, it seems funny to say he did it. "She becomes pregnant". "decapitated head"- "severed head".
Production- "signed on to co-produced"- "signed on to co-produce". Incoherence in Casting: "previously the same year"? 1b Violation of WP:FILMLEAD- rather than Canadian-American in the first sentence, maybe say a little later in the lede "A co-production of Canada and the United States". Accolades is simply too small to be a table or even a section of its own. I'd simply include the mention of the nomination, in prose form, in the Critical reception section. Should "Additional photography" header be removed and that material included in Studio Intervention, since the Weinsteins (blech) supervised it? Desson Thomson can be linked in Reception. "It's no Scream"- why isn't Scream (1996 film) linked?

Also @Drown Soda: the plot is slightly over MOS:PLOT guidelines at 743 726 words. Try to shorten. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b Is Ed Movie Guide reliable? Have never heard of it. Fright Christmas book source is WP:SELFPUBLISHED. 2c. Full source review pending 2d. Appears clean

Broad in its coverage:

3a. Fairly thorough 3b. Not a lot off-topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. The fake "Release date controversy" is handled as neutrally as possible as a fake controversy can be handled.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. No edit wars.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed, photos are free.

• 2c review May all Your Xmases be Black book ISBN leads to the obviously wrong source [2]; [3] does not support being shot in Vancouver. [4] doesn't mention a North American cut. [5] doesn't back up "offensive, ill-founded and insensitive" is a single quote as opposed to ""offensive," "ill-founded" and "insensitive." [6] is used to say a gross for the U.S., but it would be for North America. [7] says 58 reviews, not 55.

On hold Ribbet32 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I believe I've addressed your above comments and plugged in appropriate references. Let me know if you notice something else outstanding. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Better @Drown Soda:, outstanding points are still uncrossed out. For example, the Accolades table and section should be removed, it's too small and already included in the prose. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Copy that. I relocated the accolades bit to the Critical reception, and tweaked the lede for the redundant use of "film." I also removed the ISBN numbers for the documentaries—these were sourced from the back of the DVD cases, but they are not books so it wasn't channeling through to the right sources; the relevant information is still there (they are documentary featurettes from the R1 DVD release of the film). Some of your other points about the sources (i.e. the Georgia Straight source not corroborating the Vancouver filming location, etc.) are still un-crossed, but I addressed these in the previous edit and replaced them with applicable sources—I'm not sure if you forgot to cross them out or if it was just overlooked. In any case--- Drown Soda (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

March 3 Followup Drown Soda, we're close now, and there's some good scholarship here, including digging up info on Edmund Kemper who I'd never heard of before. I've tracked down the AV refs to followup on 2c. Outstanding issues: Ribbet32 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Duplicate mention of the Scream Queen in Critical response
• Quotebox: ref does not support "The only difference"- it's "The difference"
• the plot is slightly over MOS:PLOT guidelines at 726 words.
• [8] is used to say a gross for the U.S., but it would be for North America.
• [9] says 58 reviews, not 55.

Thanks @Ribbet32: I trimmed the plot down to ~630 words and tweaked the references/prose above. As far as the duplicate Scream Queen mention, I presume you are referring to the linking in the photo caption of Winstead? I've de-linked it but still feel that it needs to be there for the sake of context (the photo was taken at an awards show where she was nominated based on her role in the film specifically). --Drown Soda (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)