Talk:The Dark Crystal/Archive 1

Characters section

Not happy with the character section. I have a making of book somewhere. I'll look up the names of various characters and fill it out a bit more. Shall also put characters either in order of appearance or by 'type' e.g. Gelflings, Mysteks, Skeksis, etc. Oh, and shall have to look up the authorised spelling of Mystic / Mystik / Mystek - I'm sure it's not right in this article as it stands. sheridan 15:51, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Muppets

The Muppet wikipedia page says that the creatures from the Dark Crystal are not muppets. Which page is correct? ~~hartbc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartbc (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See Muppets vs Creatures for an explanation. —scarecroe (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming TV series.

Shouldn't we mention the upcoming animated series on Toonami on this article?

I haven't heard anything about an animated series. Do you have a source/link? Also, please sign your articles. --user.lain 01:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Author of book

Please update this article to a link to the author of the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._C._H._Smith thistlechick 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

US or English Version?

I am not sure that it is correct to put 'US Version' under the cast section as A) It was partly produced by ITC (which is British) and B) it is viewed in many other English speaking countries. I for have for now called it 'English Language Version'! 86.131.245.248

Was it originally filmed in English and then dubbed into Japanese or the other way around. If it was dubbed into Japanese then possibly it should say original cast and then Japanese dub.--NeilEvans 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Emperor's demise

Why does the Skeksis Emperor, SkekSo die exactly? What is the cause of his death.

Anon

I always assumed extreme old age? Cobratom 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the new manga by Tokyopop, it is because SkekLach the collector is withholding gelfling essence from him. 129.12.200.49 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kid A + Dark Crystal = nothing much

I deleted the following: The album Kid A by Radiohead syncs with The Dark Crystal, similar to The Dark Side of the Moon with The Wizard of Oz. The effect is created by starting Kid A at the line spoken by the Skeksis, "Fly my crystal bats! Fly!" It's original research, only mentioned once by google, and (working in a video store) i tested it myself and found it to be BS. 218.215.4.251 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you say that, since the time I sync'ed Kid A and The Dark Crystal I thought it worked pretty well. I guess it's kind of a subjective judgment call but I was glad that it was mentioned on wikipedia at the time since it was a fun & thought-provoking experience (as much as that kind of thing can be). I hope others will consider putting that little line in. ghostridethebike 11:13 11th March, 2007

Crystal Method samples

Although the opening lyrics to the Crystal Method's song "Trip Like I Do" are obviously borrowed from the movie, they are *not* directly sampled. The voice in the song has a different sound, and emphasizes the words differently than the original (and lacks the accent). Does anyone know why this is the case? I have edited the entry to reflect this a bit in the meantime. 67.161.72.198 06:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sierra's computer game adaptation(s)

Anyone up to giving those a mention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pseudo Intellectual (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I would, but I don't really remember anything about the version I had. I had an Apple IIe, and the appropriate version of the game. Alas, that was some 20+ years ago, and I was all of 8 or so at the time. About all I can remember about it was I never could beat the damn thing. MikeFTM 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Skeksis not mentioned?

I don't believe that is true. Skeksis are mentioned in the film and not just by the narrator. Someone please corroborate and correct this oversight. 67.167.180.143 12:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall them being mantioned several times in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobratom (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Skeksis are referred to as such several times by many people (ex: "The Skeksis killed my mother. And father." - Jen), but NEVER by their names in the film. The Mystics are very similar in this respect. The only Mystic ever referred to by his name in the film is ur-Zah, but this is only in a deleted scene. --Yoshiaki Abe 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What???

No mention of the comic version of The Dark Crystal? Murderbike 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The sequel... again

“ We are thrilled and grateful that fans are so interested in the progress of ‘Power of the Dark Crystal’ – an especially important project to us that will require great care and attention throughout the production process. A project of this scale takes a lot of time and energy and we continue to work through the development phase, maintaining our original vision of a film for theatrical release that combines traditional puppetry and animatronics with cutting edge CG animation. We’ll be sure to keep fans up to date as more information is confirmed. ”

-- Nicole Goldman (vice president of marketing and publicity for The Jim Henson Company), January 2008

• I moved this here because all the references related to this alleged sequel are from '06-'07. Before we declare this project, which is clearly in "development hell" to be back on, we need some sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And still again

sequel article has been recreated, but there is no new information since the previous AfD. I have opened a merger discussion on the sequel article's talk page. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Upon further reflection and given the total lack of any discussion on the subject and the unanimous consensus of the previous AfD, I have gone ahead and undone the split. Please discuss before splitting again as there is no point in having an article on a movie that might maybe be made one day maybe. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Now that another six months have gone by without any new information, I went ahead and chopped a lot of the content from the sequel section. If filming hasn't even started yet, it is unlikely it is still accurate regarding who will end up being involved, and when anything at all will actually happen. I also noticed that this content was sourced from the "production blog" which, as it turns out, is not actually maintained by anyone involved in this film, so it's even less of a reliable source than if it were the actual production blog or even a press release. This could end up like Iron Man. I remember hearing about the Iron Man movie for decades before it was actually made. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

First of all beeblbrox I just think you are being a little bit too un-informed on the sequel and weather or not it should be what "You" want it to be. Every single point you make on weather or not it is being made is wrong, let me explain. There have been numerous sources that that have said the film is being made including the Jim Henson company and director Genndy Tartakovsky. Now this is what you are saying right? "There has been no recent updates for six months, so we should completely delete the entire sequel section and call it propaganda." What the hell are you coming from? Movies have always been like this. Just because Alice in Wonderland was supposed to be released in 2009 and now its not does that mean we should delete that entire article too? There really is no "real" evidence Alice in Wonderland is being made, right? Hell beeblebrox why not just delete every future movie article, because we dont know if they are even gong to be made. I think it is sick that you are trying to completely ignore the facts of the sequel, If IMDB says it is going to be released in 2011, why not put it in here? I can tell you that IMDB is a hell of a lot better source then you, and that is some "real" information. So dont go deleting my edit of the 2011 release date because that is what the source says, and who are you to say it wont be released in 2011 just because it wasnt released when you thought it would. Please, get a life. Chasesboys (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• IMDB is created by users, just like Wikipedia, it is not really a reliable source of information. As for the rest of your remarks, chill out already. It's not the end of the world one way or another. I never said "propaganda" but the so-called "production blog" is not actually maintained by Henson Co, and even if it was blogs are not proper sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you are basically saying that your word is more important then the production blog and IMDB. You are saying weather or not this movie is being made, when sources "listed above" have controdicted your statements by saying this movie is in fact being made. Again I go to Alice in Wonderland, Just because it was delayed doesnt mean it is not happening. Chasesboys (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• And just because studio PR hacks made a vague statement a year ago that the film is in "deep development" doesn't mean it is happening. My aim was to keep the article neutral, and not make a judgement either way as to whether it is really being made, since there are no actual reliable sources indicating that filming has started, and likewise no sources saying the project has been cancelled. As far as other future film articles, they have nothing to do with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My posts are very much neutral Beeblebrox, read my post and tell me what you see. I see the words pre-Production which does not mean the movie is currently being made "RIGHT NOW", I also wrote info on the director which should be included because it gives the reader more insight on the sequel. I find it hard to believe that every single person in the world to be wrong and you be right beeblebrox. This is an issue of "wrong and right" not an issue of policy. My edits are better then yours and are more encyclopedic. Case closed. Unless you can tell me why you previous version is better I will continue to put mine up. I stated my case, now "STATE YOURS".

Chasesboys (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about instead of us going around in circles and edit-warring, we see what happens with the RFC and let consensus become clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox what consensus are you aiming for? Tell me what you are trying to accomplish here. I see my edits vs your edits. Both of which are exactly the same, the only difference being, Mine has more info. Your edits are not encyclopedic with it going straight to the plot and not having a header or opening statement. Mine does. That is all I'm tring to do here.Chasesboys (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am aiming for whatever consensus is supported by a majority of users. If it turns out the community supports your view, then so be it. That is how it works around here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous statement. First of all tell me what is such a big deal with my edits. I personally agree with the separate article issue, but not adding reliable info on the director and a proper header for the section is just nonsense. Again I want to know why you are so critical about my edits when I get the same info from the same source as you.Chasesboys (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• We have both stated our case above, and clearly agreement has not been reached. When this happens, the best course of action is to seek input from previously uninvolved users so that consensus can be formed. If you don't believe this is how to proceed, then Wikipedia is not for you. Despite you mocking me on your user page[1], that is how Wikipedia works. WP:CON states "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.". Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually took that down. So that is a non-issue. I always go for a consensus. I am probably the only user that ever tries to reach a consensus. So dont try to act like I dont know what needs to be done. Trust me, I do. Chasesboys (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, you have never stated your case. Please verify for me. Chasesboys (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Chasesboys and Beeblebrox. May I ask both of you to be civil? I am involved with the future films department of WikiProject Films, and that with my experience, I can shed some light on this matter. First of all, it is completely acceptable to provide coverage of a planned film if it is verifiable, though the notability guidelines for future films says to create a stand-alone film article if filming begins. In the meantime, coverage can fall under a broader article, may it be the source material, the film series article, the preceding film (if there is only one), or a famous filmmaker. So in this case, the "Sequel" section is appropriate in this film article. There are a few caveats, though; we do not use {{Future film}} nor {{Infobox Film}} in such sections because the coverage is about plans for a film that may or may not take place. In addition, IMDb always attaches an estimated release year to its pages of such future films. There is no actual basis for it. For example, for the Logan's Run remake or the Fahrenheit 451 remake, IMDb has changed the release years on these pages from 2007 to 2010. Also, I recommend removing the "Plot" subsection because it is uncited, and the film could be different from the planned premise. Hope this helps. If nobody has a problem with this, I can trim the templates and the subsection in a few days. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

oh, no please say it isn't true that they are ruining uh I mean remaking Logan's Run... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Logan's Run#Remake. :) Last coverage was August 2007, though, so it's pretty much in development hell now. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one has raised any objection to Erik's plan, I have made the changes he suggested and closed the RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)