Talk:Killer Klowns from Outer Space

The Blob parody?

In what way does this film parody The Blob? Daecon 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Killer Fox-like Creatures from Outer Space

Killer Fox-like Creatures from Outer Space IMDB profile points to this movie. It seems like that is a duplicate entry. JASpencer (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no such film as "Killer Fox-like Creatures from Outer Space". I suspect that entry is a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.72.105 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dickies - Killer Klowns excerpt.ogg

The image Image:Dickies - Killer Klowns excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jo Jo

The editors of this page keep insisting that the name of the viceroy "klown" at the end of the movie is Jo Jo. Jo Jo is the name of the mascot for the ice cream truck. Mdriver1981 (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah , "The Editors" , are wrong. "Jo-Jo" is the ice cream company mascot. ( As seen on top of the truck , and the Torrenzi brothers smocks. ). Several sources , including the Chiodo brothers own website , note the giant marionette klown at the end as "Klownzilla", 75.104.174.21 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I third this! This particular error brought me here! In film , the Torrenzi Brothers , announce themselves as "Jojo" , through their ice cream trucks' loud speaker. The large Klown marionette at the end has always been referenced as simply , "Klownzilla". The facts are abundantly available elsewhere! Surrender already , Dorothy! 75.104.163.77 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

sequals

there are 3-10 sequals, would like to see a better list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.184.222 (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Killer Klowns from Outer Space. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130804065104/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/news/killer-klowns-outer-space-return-3d-sequel-2012-150500195.html to http://movies.yahoo.com/news/killer-klowns-outer-space-return-3d-sequel-2012-150500195.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131014124446/http://killerklownsfromouterspace.com/pages/sequel.html to http://www.killerklownsfromouterspace.com/pages/sequel.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} 18:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Filming Locations

The film was partially shot in Watsonville , the end scenes - the amusement park - were shot at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk , but the majority of the exterior shots were done in the city of Santa Cruz , pre-Loma Prieta earthquake. ( Sites include: The Santa Cruz Police Station , "Clown Burger" was a former 50's style cafe and record store , Pacific Avenue was used for the Klown parade , and the Walgreens was used for the department store the Klowns raid. ) 75.104.174.21 (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

To the GA nominator...

• Fix instances of shouting in ref titles: refs 11, 17, 18, 20
• While we're at it, might wanna archive all of them as they appear to be delicate.
• Use a consistent date format. Since this is an American film, use the mdy format. Perhaps format them without the dashes.
• The production section is rather too short, quite honestly. For this to be GA, I think, it has to have shooting dates, locations, etc..

• I saw in AllMovie that both its DVD/Bluray transfers have an audio commentary from the directors, as well as a "making-of" and behind the scenes features. Perhaps you could rent a copy or something, you know, to give the article a significant boost? Bluesphere 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• The movie was released to DVD and Blu-ray according to AllMovie, something that you would want to add in a separate section. [1]

Hope this helps. Good luck with this one.

• MatthewHoobin, This is a ping in case you haven't read this. Bluesphere 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I will second that. Also, I think that the release section should be in its own section and more reviews added to the reception section since it seems too short.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Bluesphere/Paleface Jack: I've performed some significant cleanup and expansion of the article. I heavily expanded the Production section, split Release and Critical reception into two separate sections, included an image of the popcorn gun used in the film, and included information about the films' releases on VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray. I'd like to point out though that the mention of shouting in the citation titles is irrelevant, since those are the titles of the references, and since Wikipedia's guideline on "shouting" applies to talk page civility. I'm still working on getting the article up to speed with your other requests. –Matthew - (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Killer Klowns from Outer Space/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RobBertholf (talk · contribs) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Will get to work on the review tomorrow. Love this movie! @Rob talk 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

2nd opinion Some criteria 2 and 6 issues. There are several references to Amazon.com that wouldn't cut WP:RS. YouTube references also need to be questioned. What is HorrorNews.net, and is it a reliable source? Is the popcorn gun photo really fair use? Ribbet32 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mm, I took a brief glance at the sources and yeah, some of them are a bit sketchy. For instance, as much as I have enjoyed Good Bad Flicks in the past, I don't know that I'd trust them as a reliable source, particularly being that they are on YouTube. As far as images go, I think the popcorn gun is acceptable. At least in its current state, the article makes rather specific reference to the significance of the gun as a movie prop, so I think it's important that the reader get to see what it looks like. - @Rob talk 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the popcorn gun is mentioned in the article, but in practice Wikipedia is no longer that flexible about screenshots. Particularly if the popcorn gun is modeled after ray guns, Commons has free alternatives. That's another point- is it modeled after ray guns? Is it modeled on anything? Ribbet32 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no free alternative that could accurately convey the popcorn guns shown in the film. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would second dropping the YouTube source also as its reliability is dubious. The same goes to HorrorNews.net; it is not listed as RS for anything horror per WP:FILM/R. I can't comment about the image, though. I would also like to comment further in regards to the lede as it doesn't touch base on main points. For instance, there should be a little bit about how this movie was conceived, maybe in the second paragraph. Slightlymad (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to find a non-YouTube source for the information. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead was something I had noticed too, yeah. It felt like it didn't do much more than the barest points of the article (I haven't really done more than a glimpse of the rest, though I will tonight). I'm really sorry if I do anything wrong here, as I'm still learning about the nomination process! @Rob talk 06:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Two more points: the plot might be able to be trimmed down. For example, does the article require describing the scene where the clown kills the biker? Secondly, the Production section feels like it's listing trivia, just in paragraph form. Can you fix it to flow better? Thanks! @Rob talk 07:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do regarding the Plot, but I disagree with your concerns about the Production section. –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: After looking over the Plot section, it amounts to 619 words, which is in line with WP:FILMPLOT. I don't think there's any reason to trim down the plot. –Matthew - (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: Do you still intend to resolve the issues raised by the reviewer? Neither the article nor this review page has had a response from you since this review started. Please tell us your plans. Many thanks. Slightlymad (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I'm going to see what I can get around to fixing up. Thanks for the notification. Cheers! –Matthew - (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: The citation to the YouTube video by GoodBadFlicks has been replaced with a reference to a featurette on the Midnite Movies DVD release of the film. Lucky it was on my shelf. –Matthew - (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just checking in to say that I'll try to get to looking over the responses tomorrow. @Rob talk 23:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thought it over and looked at the changes and I'm satisfied with the points on production and story. It looks good, my only issue is that the lead is still too sparse. @Rob talk 21:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: I would drop the Cast section entirely and add the cast names in the Plot instead. We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed. SLIGHTLY^mad 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I can understand how placing the actors' names next to their roles in the Plot section would give context, but I don't understand the desire to remove the Cast section. There's no reason I can see as to why a Cast section would be detrimental to the quality of the article, and keeping the section wouldn't make the article un-encyclopedic in nature, as such a section falls perfectly in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for film articles. –Matthew - (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the format. If there is a large cast then yes, sometimes it is better to have a dedicated section. If there is a significant amount of casting information then yes, it is sometimes beneficial to have a dedicated casting section. However, as I say, we are not a collection of statistics and as a rule we do not include entire cast lists in film articles; there's IMDb for that. Many readers—myself included—find it useful to have the cast names in the plot so we don't have scroll down to another part of the article to see who is playing who! WP:FILMCAST is pretty clear about this. SLIGHTLY^mad 15:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I prefer it with the Cast section, but hey, guidelines are guidelines, and after looking it over, you're correct. I've integrated the information from the Cast section into the Plot and Production sections. –Matthew - (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't have anymore issues at the moment besides the lead. Once the lead is expanded further, I am happy to pass it. @Rob talk 21:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: Ding-dong. The article has one issue remaining which prevents it from ever attaining the Good Article status. I suggest you get on with it as soon as you can. Thanks, SLIGHTLY^mad 04:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@RobBertholf: I've expanded the lede section. How're we looking now? –Matthew - (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Release date

@Tlyon2: can you please cite a reliable source for your date change? The American Film Institute says it was released June 3. You keep changing this without providing a source. Please keep in mind that the IMDb is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I found a source and cited it. Geez. That's all you guys ever had to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)