User talk:Paul730/Archive 13

Torchwood, etc.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. The fans don't want drama. They feel they created Janto out of their own minds, which is in a sense true. It of course, was only a small part of the show. And Torchwood won't stop being gay suddenly. And I can't believe they were accusing RTD of self-hatred of the highest order, manifesting as homophobia? asassasiloasa They really acted like 12 year old girls. Which actually makes sense, them mostly being of that age. Then again, wasn't it the same when they killed Tara? And attacking Moran, who wrote episode three and not episode four, is plain moronic. It just baffles my mind, so I wrote the section to include as much criticism of that ludicrous fan reaction as was available rather than make their criticisms seem at all viable or sensible.

Dollhouse episode 13, "Epitaph One", hit the internet. I have to say, it is THE best hour of television since ... well, since Buffy was at its peak. It was basically done in a very Lost way, set in the post-apocalyptic future with flashbacks as teasers but it blew my mind. When is the new Season Eight out?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the refs is named "batshit crazy janto fans" or something. But the actual content IS balanced/NPOV ;).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still summarizing this silly non-feud, have you read the RTD interview with Ausiello and the fan reaction to that? RTD hit the nail right on the head, slyly suggested they should watch Supernatural instead (rightfully suggesting they're only in it for the exploitative HoYay). The fans respond by making him out to be some anti-Children in Need, fan-hating villain. They are NUTCASES, plain and simple. Every interview I read with RTD, I think more and more than he's arrogant but also that he has the right attitude towards these people and that he's very honest.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally support your reversion of that user's comment on Talk:Jack; Wikipedia does not cater exclusively to the stupid.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the season two ones are better, they are also strangely close-up shots of the characters. I mean, the best would be the new season three pics where they all pose with cool guns, but I'm fairly fond of the unflattering season one shots because they sort of convey the crappiness/uneven quality of the first season.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heya, I was watching "Earshot" last night. Did you catch Buffy's classroom discussion about Iago and Othello when you watched it? The literature discussion is such a hackneyed device, but I guess it's not that bad because it never occurred to me before last night that the writers were actually talking about the relationship between Buffy (Othello) and Faith (Iago). I was searching around for sources and I can't find any. Do you have any ideas where I can look for one? There's one about Angel being Othello (http://www.slayage.com/articles/000016.html) which I haven't read, although I suppose Angel/Angelus or Angel/Spike might be seen similarly. Hmm. Oh and the Ianto fans get even crazier!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On a more intelligible note, I loved the new Buffy (speculation abound now however) and I got around to reading Angel #23 which is making me want to buy the Only Human miniseries.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! What do you make of this discussion -- I feel it shares commonalities with the "Lehane" debate. Talk:Tom (Lost)#Surname as Friendly - imdb.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't requesting your intervention / back-up as such, merely checking to see if I was on the right page with the name debate etc., but thank you. :) On the Jack article, you'll notice RTD and Barrowman have taken similar stances on the Face of Boe thing (clearly some directive not to say anything outright) while pretty much confirming it. Do you think I could justify including a picture of the Face of Boe in the development section, with a real-world information caption, under Fair Use? And do you have any suggestions to work up the article for a new FAR?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While I can assure you I can spell and am proficient with grammar, I can't be certain this is reflected in my late night Wikipedia editing. Especially since I usually end up leaving discarded half-sentences loose within my prose, to no aim other than confusion. I haven't read Only Human. I was curious but then I read a bad review on whedoneque saying it read a bit like fanfiction. I'm also worried about the way Angel on IDW is going, in the direction of a never-ending X-Book story which has weak links to 'canon' and therefore ramifications for Buffy's world and the Buffy world in general.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially if Twilight is Angel ;). Now with Aftermath we have this weird sort of canon, where it's kinda canon in the "I guess this is what happened after After the Fall" sense and then stuff written by Lynch, such as Epilogue and Only Human then seem to fall somewhere between the Whedon-plotted After the Fall and the low-canon Aftermath by virtue of being written by Brian Lynch and extending out of his original blessing from/co-writing with Joss. And of course, Lynch regularlyy makes some sort of Spike allusion to canonize his two previous offerings. How do you feel Buffyverse Wiki should address this, as a side issue? Some articles seem to continue discussing what became of Kate, Gwen, Nina etc. (and also ugh at Armstrong making them core?) but others such as Connor's seem to tactfully stop with #18, and some more sensibly recap #23 for its relevance to Non, Kenny the T-Rex, Gunn, Illyria and the Asylum cast. I guess this is similar to Go Ask Malice in the "canon for now" department, but then I guess some fans held Queen of the Slayers and Oz as canon for a time. I also like how IDW are having Connor lead the Angel series now, as if they're taking a page from how DC and Marvel are currently running their Captain America, Batman, Superman and Incredible [Hercules] series? Trendy.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That's a good approach. The style should be quasi-out-of-universe enough (like a bad Wiki article) so as to make clear that this might not be "accurate" though. I hate the approach taken on TARDIS Wikia, which holds that as nothing is "canon" then nothing is "non-canon" so they try and make sense of things like Sarah Jane's adventures over the years and come to some rambling OR conclusion about her husband and children dying or being written out of history or something. At least, one version of that page did. Tardis Wikia is a mess, for the most part; at least Buffy Wikia has a nice style about it.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is actually really impressive as a piece of research! Fantastic. Well done. I can't really critique the timeline since I'm not familiar with the comics and whatnot. I have no desire to see films 4-6, mostly because they look crap, not just because they're "not canon". What about Spike: Old Times? I think it has canonical problems since it looks like an Angel s5 story about Halfrek, but from what I've read I like it for all of PAD's expansion on Cecily/Halfrek. I would in my personal mind want to mentally rearrange it to imagine chipped Spike in Los Angeles one night. I don't know how possible that is within the constraints of the story. But it's PAD, so there. Also, what about Fallen Angel Reborn ft. Illyria, have you read any?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Being an important crossover, it could go under "Literature" in a final worked up version. I don't mind it in the Buffy Wikia as such, but I would draw a line at covering PAD's characters and settings there. It can't possibly be canon, of course, because Fallen Angel is linked to the DC Universe which is fictional in Buffy, so it can't be a Buffyverse demon dimension. Ah, just before I go to bed, I implore you to read the new Harmony comic (jpgs are linked on whedonesque as the Myspace Dark Horse Presents website is down) which is fantastic. Clearly there's a spell at work. Possibly the "Superstar" spell, since it's Espenson. Oh, and Harmony's clearly working for Twilight! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think we're meant to. It's not subtle, it's not any kind of detectable social commentary. What do you think of Bayarmaa's "actress" being Dichen Lachman? Personally, I love that Jeanty did that.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

BreakZ

Well, that's infuriating. It doesn't put them in a good light, but it's true to the whole of sources on the web. AfterElton's published criticism (in line with fan response) is represented (but not as "fan reaction") as is the io9, Den of Geek, Wales Online, Digital Spy and Comic-Con coverage. It's not like I've simply invented it all or added my own original research to the sources. This is an example of their craziness, again. The article doesn't even begin to purport that all Ianto fans are crazy. Just that clearly, some, have behaved out of conduct. And the figure they keep changing, while accurate, doesn't coincide with the source.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is irritating because the template makes an illusion of a POV problem for the casual reader who would go onto assume there are fifty million other unattached sources. It's hard to argue with zealots about anything, as you know.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've made an edit to the Faith article you'll probably want to fix. And are you satisfied with the caption of the (free! yay!) Face of Boe image added to the Jack article? After reading Fallen Angel Reborn, I kinda wanna rewrite Illyria (Angel) but I don't have the time to go through the masses of critical bother about her meaning (complicated by it also being about Fred, in a sense). I also want to do Willow, Oz, Riley and Connor (becoming the lead of IDW's Angel being real-world-interesting). And Angel, because his name is Liam. I never will, of course, because I have to read The Faerie Queene by the end of the month.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

None yet. My access to journals seems more limited with remote access at home then it would be on site at university. I could look for some. Problem with a lot of Buffy and Angel sources are the painful process of transcribing the DVD commentaries, the fact that a lot of links to news articles have expired / the internet wasn't so busy in the nineties, and it's so DIFFICULT to narrow it down to relevant stuff. It would be great if we could find a source that comments on Spike's outrageous popularity, which is obviously the main factor behind his ridiculous number of solo books. Spike is practically it's own spin-off franchise, squeezed under the Angel label.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you listened to "Commentary! the Musical!" yet? Better than Dr. Horrible. The cast + the Whedon family play crazy, maniacal versions of themselves. Joss plays himself as an egotistic sell-out who craves scary, depressing emo storylines while Zack is a wannabe hard-man and Felicia Day is a pretentious arts graduate. It's wonderful. Also, reading Willingham on Angel's absence from After the Fall while working on your Sandbox 2, I think I've found the best peice of evidence as to Twilight's identity: "[Angel needs to leave the book for a while] but through the magic of comic books, the readership will know where he is".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but I saw that was your guess on SlayAlive (I lurk). Future Xander is also a weird possibility, given the series went to pains to establish the whole time travel thing and then followed it with "We'll Be Right Back!". Perhaps "I know that move" is a red herring to make us think Caleb (why or how?) or Angel (even weirder). Perhaps Twilight is a robot or a projection and the real traitor is someone in the group. Or several people. It's the kind of the thing where the clues are irrelevant to whatever they eventually explain at the last minute. Also, Commentary! is on YouTube.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I don't post is that it doesn't keep me indefinitely logged in and I never remember my password.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I particularly like Nobody's Asian in the Movies and then a lot of particular lines in particular songs. Joss's song is great, and Day's song is wonderful in that it reminds me of so many pretentious artistes I know. And I've seen Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus too: pity.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A Break for Buffy

Hi, it's that time again! What did you think? Spoiler-free comments just in case: personally I loved it as a sequel to "Storyteller", for the fruition of subtextual love-plots, for kicking the main story into gear, for Georges doing a great job with the art this month, and perhaps (as a few posters on Whedonesque opine) for the reparative therapy double-meaning to the suppression of magic.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Leah is so very Scottish in the way British characters are so very English in 90s American comedies. It's sorta wonderful. I think Espenson is a very clever woman, but I wonder whether all is hers or Joss's? She's clearly his biggest gun so I would imagine she has the most cred for handling these big stories. Meltzer, we can only hope. I left my thoughts on Whedonesque, a bit late to the party.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It does appear for now that short of BBC Scotland getting a budget increase on the other side of the recession that won't happen. Unless, Torchwood series four were to. Oh, who am I kidding? :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Paul, I put Jack Harkness up for FAC again and one of the only concerns is the big paragraphs. However, the way their written (which I am quite wedded to) structurally doesn't allow for each of them to simply to chop them in the middle. Could you suggest an effort to re-structure it in the next day or so?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As always your advice is stellar. Thanks for reminding me of my Sandbox. I'll do this tomorrow (busy week... why'd I FAC today? Ah well.) Cheers.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Howzat?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. The editor on the "final girl" article, for both Buffy and Willow, quoted without quote marks. The strange syntax makes it very hard to tell. I might Google Books it later and see; if it's not there, I'll check it (and some others) in the Bod at the start of next month.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ah, Undead TV: Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Paul, do you have any suggestions for ways to source the existence of JH action figures? Seems difficult. There were some questions raised as to the reliability of sources which is just the pernicious side of Wikipedia rearing its head, but I must obey.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I ought to use this source and just say "action figures exist in the character's likeness, which had been Barrowman's "longtime dream"" bla bla? GAH.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Smallville bootleg

Bootleg of the season 9 ComicCon footage, with a brief glimpse of Clark's new costume (including the shield on his chest). P.S. Sound sucks on the vid, everyone sounds different for some reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to see. Only at the very end do you see a quick shot of the "S" on his chest as he stands atop the building. I was a little apprehensive about it being all black (kind of still am), but that looked alright in the promo. It also looked like he may be trying to learn to fly in one shot - I know he is supposed to talk to Jor-El in the premiere and address the reason why he hasn't flown yet. BAG looked pretty bad ass as Metallo in that shot of him with the kryptonite in his chest. I'm curious how much they'll make him look like "full on" Metallo. Erica Durance is getting 18 episodes this season, so we'll get to see more of Lois/Clark. Supposedly they have a series finale already lined up in case they don't get a tenth season. P.S. That fan girl was hilarious. I thought she was going to have a heart attack while watching that promo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Superman has worn a black costume in the comics before. It's usually one he wears when he's trying to regain his strength (I think it absorbs more yellow Sun radiation). I know he wore one when he returned from exploring in Superman Returns, and I think Tim Burton wanted to give him a black costume. I kind of would prefer a blue and red one, to go with his "Red-Blue Blur" persona, but I think the black is supposed to symoblically represent where he's at mentally. They are touting the season as "Clark's darkest hour", and I think they are trying to represent that through color schemes (which is typical of Smallville).

That's just it, I'm not sure if he actually flew any in the promo. It appeared that he was attempting it when he dove off the building - otherwise, my assumption would be why "dive" when you can simply step off. Lois was accidentally sent into the future last season, and apparently when she returns she begins having "visions" (probably just memory recalls) about the future that are eventually supposed to help Clark find the right path again. As for the sex scene, the rumor is that it's really just a dream sequence for one of the characters.

I noticed you two were talking about the character, but I wasn't sure what it was about. I don't watch the show so I didn't think to read the convo. Did RTD diss Supernatural and poetry in one fell swoop? Interesting backlash. What are your thoughts? To me it seems like people are getting their knickers in a twist over a simple plot point. I think Whedon would probably point out that the best drama created from character deaths is when you kill people that are really popular with fans. I found this interesting, but I disagree that the "bar should be high" when killing a gay character. I'm all for equal rights, and that includes an equal opportunity of death in a TV series. You cannot say "If no one ever dies, it’s hard to take any of these plots seriously," and then follow that up with "Gays need special treatment". They don't get it in real life--well they do, but it's usually negative treatment--no one comes into a bar and starts killing people only to stop and say "are you homosexual and in a loving relationship?".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the glasses thing was from season seven. I would really love for them to kind of start adding that to season nine (him wearing glasses). Supposedly Lois sees a very distinct future, one where "Superman" isn't around or at least if he stays on the path that Clark ("Red-Blue Blur") is currently on.

I'll see about the Children of Earth thing. I haven't even started Angel yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It was something Jimmy coined after catching a photo of a "red-blue blur" saving Lois from getting hit by a car. He quickly linked the "Red-Blue Blur" to the "Good Samaritan" that was saving people around Metropolis and the one name began to substitute the other. That being said, even Lois acknowledges to the "Red-Blue Blur" in a phone conversation that it is a mouthful, to which Clark tells her that he knows she'll find a better one for him.

That looks funny. I love how Spike became a girl, clinging to Angel in the second mock-up. Is Joss just abandoning all of his pet projects in favor of Dollhouse (which probably won't last past season two).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I have a feeling Cabin in the Woods isn't going to change the face of horror. I'd believe Wes Craven's 25/8 would do that first, and I don't even think that will. Changing the face of horror is really hard to do. Saw attempted it, and all we got was less horror and the creation of torture porn. It's horrific to watch, but not really my definition of a "horror movie". BTW, why does The Cabin in the Woods even have a page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See, that's just it. How much did Scream really change horror? The films themselves were influential to the genre in some respects, but once they ended that was pretty much it. The idea of the characters being that self aware within a horror film was virtually abandoned after Kevin Williamson stopped making the Scream films. Psycho pretty much changed how we looked at horror films, because it was really the dawn of the slasher film - which has had almost 50 years of existence now. I mean, you can go back further than Psycho to get slasher films, but Psycho was the film that put that on the map. I think Texas Chain Saw actually did more for slasher films than Halloween. It established more of the key concepts that exist, it was one of the (if not the) first independent slasher film to become a huge success, and it did it with probably less blood than Halloween (granted they both has next to none). I think that Halloween and Friday the 13th (the latter did the same as Texas just in the reverse by having tons of blood and guts) did was establish--notoriously in some markets--the idea of making these films lucrative, yearly excursions with a long line of sequels. Critics can say what they will about the sequels, but they established these franchise (along with Nightmare) as iconic horror franchises. I would bet that if we had a Michael Myers mask, a Jason mask, and a Ghostface mask and walked around cities asking people to identify the character (or at least the movie) the first two would dominate. Once you leave that MTV generation, Ghostface basically loses steam in the popular culture world - and the MTV generation really isn't that large. At least, that's my assessment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Scream made horror fun again, but it didn't really change anything. Other than the Scream movies, no other franchise really tried to tackle that same theme again. It's contribution was bringing horror back into the public eye--which is a great contribution--but it didn't change anything with lasting affect. I disagree that those sequels were affected by Scream, with the exception of H20 casting choices for the kids.

I agree that Halloween refined the rules, and that is something you still see to this day. What from Scream do you still see? After 3 films, not a lot. It brought horror back into popularity, but did nothing to influence any changes to the genre. The genre already had nubile teens running around getting killed. Hell, most horror films still don't have characters that were nearly as intelligent as the ones in Scream. That concept was abandoned as well (at least from the perspective of "number of characters" in a film).

You proved my point, "Most people my age". Whether MTV is a huge deal over there or not is irrelevant, because it's the age group. People your age grew up with Scream. It's what brought them to the genre. What I said was, if you look beyond that age group, Freddy, Jason and Michael are far more recognizable. P.S. I wouldn't put Freddy first if we were showing just his face - whole outfit, probably, but not just his face. Jason's mask is referenced more often in media than almost any other horror element, even if it's a poor immitation of the mask. Each character has their own elements. It's Freddy's glove, Jason's mask, and Michael's name that are the most identifiable features of those characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Break

Summer doesn't count, written by the same person so there's a COI there. Urban is a stretch, because had Scream not come out then you wouldn't even think twice about Urban Legend. That's it. What is the influence for H20? Like I said, they helped with the popularity, but they were not all that influential on the cinematic level. On a cinematic level, you can see where films like Psycho, TCM, Halloween, F13, and Nightmare have left their influence on horror films for decades. Scream didn't. They were great at what they did, but it just wasn't enough to influence films later. Capitalizing on the moment doesn't mean that there is real influence. In reality, when you think about Saw, what other torture porn is there? Hostel? That failed miserably. The more I think about it, Saw is really doing now what Scream did 10 years ago. It basically reinvigorated the genre, but what happened right after Scream? Studios started bringing back their lead monsters again for the same tired shit because the popularity of the genre was up. Saw reinvigorated it, and what do we have now but lots of remakes of classic slasher films. Scream and Saw act more as sparks than flames. They get the fire going, but they don't sustain it.

Ghostface is outdated already. I guarantee if you show a Jason mask to a 10 year old, they'll probably know that better than Ghostface. There's a resurgence, thanks to Freddy vs. Jason in that classic slasher icon culture.

Um, I don't know. Fan websites are generally decided upon by the community of editors of those articles. If there are multiple fansites, then obviously none are that special and they all should go. If it can be demonstrated that this site is more special than the rest, then I would argue that it should stay. Kind of like with Kryptonsite. It's easily arguable that since Craig Byrne writes the official companions and his contact with the studio frequently that his website is probably notable enough to be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Did JLC say this in an interview that I'm unaware of? As for H20, isn't Williamson an uncredited writer of that film? Hmm...funny how any film even remotely influenced by Scream is in some way connected directly to this man. Another COI - and I disagree with the music comparison. Maybe some similarities in particular instrument choices, but I never felt like they sounded the same. Decent actors? LL Cool J, Josh Hartnet and Michelle Williams? Really? I'm not saying they were shitty actors, but they're eye candy. At least the originals had Donald Pleasance - an established actor.

Scream 4 will be stuck in development hell for many years, mark my words. They think they have it all set now, but how many times did they have a script, director, and actor for a new Superman movie before Superman Returns? Many times, over the course of 20 years. No one is coming back but the Arquettes. Who is going to want to watch a new trilogy (one that was already getting tired by the third one), only to see Courtney and David?

Is the website an online petition? If so, then not at all, anywhere. It's ok to discuss the website, if it's notable in its own right, but Wiki doesn't take sides and provide a link to a website that petitions for something would violate WP:NPOV. If someone is that dedicated to it, then they can Google it themselves and take part, but Wiki shouldn't be providing them easy access to cast their vote.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless she said that, you cannot make that assumption. Maybe she just liked the script. Maybe she was just hard up for money. Maybe she was just hard up for publicity, and given that this film retconned the past three films and made her character actually relevant again she had a way back into the franchise.

Again, being impressed by a film and hiring that writer to write all of your films does not constitute "influence". Exactly what scene in Scream is it lifted straight from? Ottman talks about both, but no scene is identified specifically, because apparently they did it all over the place. Well, you cannot accuse Mimic of stealing the score, because Marco Beltrami did the music for both Mimic and Scream. It's like accusing Harry Potter of stealing the music from Home Alone. It's all John Williams, and he has the same basic sound in all his films.

Ok. How long between Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X? The latter was in development all that time. Scream 4 has only been in serious development here recently. Jason X even sat on the shelf, completed, for a year. Craven is busy trying to figure out what he wants to do with 25/8. Williamson's last movie was Cursed. Not bad, but that was him trying to infuse that Dawson's Creek writing into a werewolf film, and he failed. The last real thing he worked on was Hidden Palms, and that was canceled after 8 episodes. He's desperate. He's trying to go back to the last thing that made him some serious change, and the only talent he can attract is the Arquettes. He may get one film made, but mark my words. Any others will be direct-to-dvd, like that last I Know What You Did sequel.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe she was just a fan of Dawson's Creek, ;).

I actually like the music in the scene where Michael gets up after being hit in the head with the fire extinguisher and chases after Laurie and the kids. I mean, I like it in the whole film, but that scene never bothered me. Nor did I have flashbacks of Scream.

That was the initial reason, because FvJ has been in development Hell since before Newline ever bought the rights to F13. Technically, JGtH was a filler film until the showdown, because Newline had just released New Nightmare. They spent years developing JX after getting frustrated with the lack of progress on FvJ. Then after they get finished, it sat on the shelf for a year - for no apparent reason. The point was more that they couldn't get anything working for years. FvJ is probably an even better example of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jason

Yeah, but I saw that more as a one shot gimmick, that is never addressed again. Plus, "demon-infested heart" isn't really the same thing as "a demon". I don't know about FvJvA, that's your territory. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Whenever I get the chance I hope to pick up the trade paperbacks of those two series (the latter won't be till after December, I'm sure). Did you pick up the "Killer Cut", or the "Theatrical Cut" of the remake?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can always obtain it online (Amazon is usually great with that stuff. You could even order it from Amazon.com - as opposed to Amazon.uk - to get it sooner). Nightdance is on my Amazon wishlist. I literally just moved from Florida to Michigan, and I'm in the processing of trying to find a job now so I cannot really buy anything until I get a decent job. Trust, once I do have a good job (that means I earn enough to support myself without living from paycheck to paycheck) I'll be all over it. :D

TBH, I think Bay knows entertainment, and slasher films are entertainment. They are not meant to be anything less or more than that. His TCM remake was great, IMO. So was the Ammityville remake. F13 was awesome, and I have high expectations for the Nightmare remake. I really want to see that ComicCon footage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you guys have bank cards there? I know my bank card has a "visa" logo on it, that allows me to purchase things online. I don't really mess with credit cards all that much.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure I'll love it. I came to Michigan because my g/f is going for her PhD at the university here. The original Nightmare had depth and artistic value to it. After that, the sequels really just became simple that...sequels. Piggy-backing off the storyline of the original, not even New Nightmare had the same artistic attention that Craven gave the original.

Well, I don't know if the character will drown and if he does it will be on a closed set pool because the studio promised they wouldn't kill anyone in the school pools that they filmed at. As for Halloween, I still like it. It brought something new to the Michael Myers characters, and made him far more scarier (IMO), because it gave reasons for how he is. It made him real, and reality is always scarier than fantasy. Don't get me wrong, the idea of "not knowing" is very scary, but since it had already been done you cannot really remake that idea and still have it be scary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, the first one was artistic in its approach, but since no sequel really bothered to be different there wasn't much "artistry" involved in any of them. I agree that the original Nightmare and Halloween set a high bar that none of the sequels could really ever achieve. F13 set a low bar for just trashy entertainment, and as such you get your Final Chapters and Jason Lives, which are actually really good slasher sequels that--in some ways--kind of surpass the original (though, you can never really best a little old lady murdering a bunch of drugged/sexed teens). Right now, I cannot wait till April of next year, because it's going to be awesome, i have that feeling (just watched the original Nightmare last night with my g/f and new roommate...Dream Warriors and New Nightmare are next on the list). Speaking of my list, when you rewatch F13, Nightmare, and Halloween, do you also find that you're more selective with the sequels you watch with regard to Nightmare and Halloween than with F13? Like, I feel like I have to watch F13 1-4 and 6, while I only need to watch Nightmare 1, 3, and 7, and Halloween 1, 2, and 7.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like Jason Takes Manhattan? For what it's worth, I do like A New Beginning. It was an interesting choice to make, that just didn't really pan out (mainly because of poor execution). I'd say that Bay has a good track record of keeping the lead protagonist close to the original, but frankly we've never actually had a film that was close enough to a remake that we actually had any similar roles beyond that of the lead slasher.

See, I rarely watch the Halloween movies - mainly because I was brought up on Nightmare and F13. I don't watch Nightmare all that often, which is probably because I "bonded" more with Jason than any of the other slashers. The movies were very easy to watch, you knew who you were rooting for from start to finish, and for the most part they had a pretty linear timeline throughout each of the sequels. Plus, Jason just seemed more badass to me when I was growing up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, as Nightmare and Halloween set their respective bars too high for their sequels and were more "original" in their first outings, I find that it is F13 that has taken more chances with its franchise than any of the others (e.g., copycat killer, leaving the iconic geography behind, etc.). Have you watched the extended cut of F13 remake? I love the scene where he his sharpening the machete, because you get a better sense for what he deals with on a daily basis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Halloween III wasn't risky, that was Carpenter sticking it to the studio. The idea of doing an "anthology" film series was originated with Sean Cunningham, who wanted to do that with Friday the 13th. That was the original plan before Friday the 13th Part 2 every came out. Halloween never tried to dress up someone else in a Michael Myers mask and then kill a bunch of people pretending to be him. Why, because that would piss fans off. Halloween has only ever left Haddonfield once, while F13 has gone to New York (weakly, but they still went) and even done the dreaded space film. Michael has never actually died, he's just always unexplainedly "survived" things. After Part 4, they began killing Jason at the end of each film, and then resurrecting him as a stronger, zombie-ish creature of his former self.

People either had extended death sequences, or subtle changes. Trent was originally impaled on the back of the truck, but in the extended cut he's stabbed, killed, and then planted on the back of the truck. Whitney actually escapes. Chewie's death scene is longer. More sex. lol. The biggest thing was the machete sharpening scene, which was in the trailer but not in the theatrical cut of the film. Did you watch the alternate/deleted scenes? I never liked the rape scene in the uncut version of RZH. I preferred the original way Michael escapes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

section break

Jamie being the killer was just another attempted thieved idea from Friday, given that that was were they were going to take the Tommy character. Both series pussied out on that - hell, Friday pussied out twice (at the end of The Final Chapter and then again at the end of A New Beginning). The point is that the Halloween series hasn't taken as many risks with their primary character. They took a big risk with the franchise itself, but not with Michael. He's basically been the same from start to finish whenever he appears.

The Thorn concept was an attempt to explain why he goes after his family, it really didn't explain why he can survive countless shots to the chest (the man's chest probably looks like swiss cheese). Thorn was more creative, but not risky, because Michael didn't really change (or even have to) for that storyline to work. In the first four Friday films Jason is, more or less, still a regular man. He endures a lot, but he still shows it. In Jason Lives that's all thrown out the window and you get zombie-Jason. You jump from "reality-based" to fantasy based. It was a risk they were willing to take because their character was effectively dead. The first four Fridays were like all of the Halloween sequels, as Jason and Michael would be "seemingly" killed, only to reveal in the sequel that they were merely hurt and not actually dead. Then Friday had the brass to actually kill Jason - which, Dimension finally got with H20 (one of my favorite endings to any slasher film, btw). But Dimension chickened out and retconned that event. Paramount rolled with it and was like, fuck it, let's just bring him back to life like Frankenstein.

The best deleted/alternate scenes were where Jason gets the mask (there was a completely different way he got it) and Jason's death (as he died differently). There was a deleted scene with the sheriff that explained why he was the one that showed up at the house, which I kind of liked, but most of the others were just extensions. My problem with the deletion of some of them is that they explained certain things that were not explained in the film. Like the mechanic/weed guy talked about someone stealing the old man's kerosene and then later we see Jason has power to the camp. One was a plot point that was never explained why we needed to know about it, and another was never explained how he even got the power to work. The alternate scene where he gets his mask shows that he was the one that was stealing the gas and using it to keep the generators running to the camp.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that Michael and Freddy were closer to "perfect" (I don't think they were 100% perfect right off the bat) than Jason was. Personally, I like the more human Jason than the zombie Jason. Don't get me wrong, the zombie-Jason films are more entertaining to watch as a horror fan, but Jason himself is scarier and just better when he's more human (ala remake).

Oh, no I knew who was taking the kerosene when I saw it in theaters, but to most people (namely my friends) they were like, "what the hell was the point of that, and how does Jason have power to the camp?". Actually, the Sheriff's deputy took the call but refused to actually go out to the house. One was because Clay made the call and the second was because of who's house it was. He was all like, "He's just crying wolf", and the Sheriff gets his stuff and starts to head out there, and says something to the effect of, "Do you remember what happened to the boy at the end of that story?...The wolf ate him." So, you kind of see that this Sheriff actually takes his job seriously, and I thought it was a nice little scene (albeit unnecessary) showing that regardless of who was calling, he was going to do his job and make sure everything was alright.

It's not in the article, and I haven't heard anything about that. That's interesting, but I'm curious as to how they plan to handle it. I don't think Freddy would sound very scary with a Scottish accent (no offense).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor things that just completed them - some cosmetic, and some characteristic. Like, I think think "funny Freddy" is good, but the random quip here and there in New Nightmare was kind of cool to have (e.g., "Hey Dylan, every play...skin the cat"). He had a bit more to say than in the original film, and what he said wasn't repetitious (e.g., "Come to Freddy"). Plus, the red/green sweet where the red/green goes all the down the sleeves is much better than the original. Zombie's move to make Michael's jumpsuit actually be realistically used, and not in pristine condition like in the original was an added benefit. If Zombie got anything right, IMO, it was the appearance of Michael. Characteristically I cannot say much, because the character doesn't say or do much - seek out family and kill them.

Well, it may be that his heritage is Scottish (which doesn't make a lot of sense given his last name is Krueger), but that "burned Freddy" doesn't sound Scottish. I read a thing with Haley where he was talking about how hard it was to find that "Freddy voice", and in the end it will probably be a combination of his take on the Freddy voice coupled with digital adjustments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have said "I don't think that 'Funny Freddy' is good, but the random quip here and there is cool". Oh, you cannot take something the comics and apply it to the films. That idea of him seeking out people that remind him of Judith wasn't established in the film series. The film series was simply about the biological connection (even more so when Thorn was involved). The original is really the only one that hadn't really established that aspect, because at the time Laurie was just a random babysitter - though, you have to wonder if that was JC's original intention. Michael seemed awfully fixated on Laurie more than any other character, almost like he recognized her. Michael only really made "art" out of his victims with Annie - maybe Paul, but everyone else was just killed and left as they were. Michael's only complicated in the original film, and that's more because you don't understand his motives (because they aren't explained). Once they reveal the motive the complications start to subside.

Most of the Nightmare info has basically trailed off. There doesn't seem to be anymore interviews. They finished principle photog. Maybe they'll do more interviews later, when it gets closer to release time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's where the comics took it. That was their interpretation of that film. The film itself never says that. Just because a great answer arrives years later to provide a motive for his actions doesn't mean that the original film actually did that. Michael's fixation is with Laurie more than anyone. He watches her at school, watches her as she walks with her friends, watches her at her house, stares at Tommy's house while she is babysitting from across the street. His fixation is on her more than anyone. Annie never gave him a reason to put the tombstone over her body, so if Lynda supposedly reminded him of Judith so much, why wasn't her body the one that got the tombstone? Lynda's physical features are closer to Judith's than Annie's were. His actions made no sense. Why wait 17 years before escaping? Why wait till Halloween? They made no sense because JC couldn't find a good enough reason, because JC figured it would be scarier just to have him kill people for seemingly no reason at all. If those three reminded him of Judith, then every female he came across would remind him of Judith, because those three have such stark personality differences that anyone could fit Michael's profile of Judith.

Like I said, he's only complicated in the first film because there is no real reason for his actions. He just does it to do it. What a comic book comes up with, no matter how awesome the answer, doesn't change the fact that in the original film he had no clearly set motive, because JC just couldn't think of one. Laurie could have just as easily been the first one to die. Lack of explanation doesn't mean it's complex, it just means it was shitty story telling. You cannot provide so many doors to motives and not at least answer one of them, or else it seems like you were just trying out different ideas and couldn't find one you liked so you just left them all in there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

section break 2

Again, an observation made by someone else. You can see whatever you want, it doesn't mean it was really there. I think your personal bias is clouding some of your judgment on this. Halloween wasn't "nearly universally considered a flawless masterpiece". It was praised more than most horror films, mainly for what it did to the genre, but it wasn't like the detractors were so far and few between that they basically did not exist.

Ah, see you're adding your interpretation to his actions. What I see is someone stalking Annie and accidentally knocking over a flower pot in the dark. I see a car door that was probably already locked, and he unlocked when he climbed in (there was another door to the car she didn't try). You cannot supply intention to actions we never actually see. The same goes to the laundry door. If the girls remind him so much of Judith, then why not try and kill them in a way that mirrors her death? If he's so fixated on that event, he would certainly try and relive it if he could.

You say, "Michael Myers is the bogeyman. He's not a human being, he's not meant to be understood." - then how can you possibly supply the motive that he was attracted to these girls because they reminded him of Judith? If he's not human, and he's not meant to be understood then how can there possibly be any subtext in the film present that would allow you to understand him? There wouldn't be. Michael was just a psychopath, and true psychopaths don't necessarily have a reason for their actions. They probably have some underlying reasons for what brought them to this point in their lives, but true psychopaths will just kill for the sake of killing (e.g., dogs, people that catch their eye, or just someone who gets in the way of the one who catches their eye). If Michael is not human, then he doesn't need a reason and the Judith theory is irrelevant. If he is human, then there would be something that caused his actions, but not necessarily something that will pinpoint where his actions will go (i.e. motive).

It's probably best that we end this discussion, because it seems to be getting a little heated. :/  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say your opinion was invalid, I was merely saying that you cannot apply it to the film as fact. It's a possibility, but not a fact. I know you weren't not intending to show me anger, or aggression, I just realized that I know you get passionate about Halloween and you were become very impassioned in the discussion. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That scene never made sense to me. I mean, he didn't shave the mustache off the black doctor when he possessed him. It's like, why did no other person talk when possessed, yet when the deputy arrives he clearly speaks. I think they were things that made no sense in the script. That film had so many problems, it's just too hard to address. I'm not sure anyone has actually addressed it formally, or at least I haven't read anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A big problem is that they stole the idea from The Hidden. Here is a page that lists all of the technical errors, continuity errors, and just flat out bloopers within the film. There are a lot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

H2

As far as I know, they don't have a UK release date set yet. I'm going to go see it at midnight. Well, to say that the one review doesn't bode well doesn't mean that much (neither would 100 reviews for that matter). For one, the reviewer acknowledges that he was one of the few that liked the remake. Second, horror movies are like sodas, they all have their own tastes and it's about whether you like it personally. The whole world apparently likes Coca Cola, because it's everywhere, but it's not my personal choice for soda. My feelings are, the film will probably be entertaining from a Halloween standpoint. I've come to understand that the only words Rob Zombie knows are "fuck", "cunt", "bitch", etc and that's basically what he writes. He's a great story-teller, IMO, just not a great writer. He has good vision. He's like the George Lucas of the horror genre. He can give you a good story, and even make it visually appealing, but when it comes to actually writing things down he sucks at it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the way I looked at Haddonfield in RZH is the way Haddonfield probably would be in today's world. Most of those "small town haven"/"middle Americas" don't really exist anymore. Even Smallville is kind of a stretch. It's nice to see, but in reality it's not really like that anymore, especially with the economy the way it has been. Families just aren't that "perfect", so to speak" anymore. That said, most don't act like Zombie's character's either, where everyone seems to share the same brain cell. I liked Laurie's parents, but I despised her. I do appreciate the realism that Zombie has been trying to create with all of the characters. I know people hate the fact that Michael has a defined motive now, but to me when you're 30 years old it's about time someone provide a reason for your actions. Otherwise, RZH would have been like that Psycho remake in 1998....shot-for-shot identical. And that would have sucked. To me, it's something different and that's what I like. H20 is still probably my favorite (a part from that horrible way they lit the mask and showed Michael's eyes the whole time).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, great for a film in the 70s, not so much for a film in the 2000s. Those types of places really don't exist anymore. Don't get me wrong though, it's not like I think that Zombie's Myers family actually hit the nail on the head as far as child neglect/abuse goes for creating a psychopath. If anything, it's clear that Michael has issues that are deeper than just simply family problems. I think what Zombie did was show how something, possibly biological, could be so simple and yet so complicated at the same time. Michael is both intelligent and simple minded, all in one. He's got a one track mind, but he knows how to accomplish what he wants to achieve. I agree, it would have been cooler to see a middle class family that appears normal to the world, but behind closed doors they are really demons (metaphorically).

I disliked the fact that she was basically as innocent as Annie or Lynda in RZH, in my opinion. I think what Zombie might have been going for was that she is a Myers, and as such no amount of good parenting will make this child "perfect". For all intents and purposes, she is "perfect", in the sense that she probably never gets into real trouble. But, foul mouth Laurie, who hasn't actually gone through the ordeal of "Halloween" yet was not appealing to me. She looks far more interesting in the sequel though.

But Freddy's always had an explained background. I don't think you can have much sympathy for a character that murders children, even if he was bullied as a child himself. That's just me though. To me, explaining Leatherface didn't really demystify the character, because to me all that did was provide concrete proof for what was already suspected. It's clear from how the Hitchhiker and the Cook (and later the other family members) bully Leatherface that that is something he has probably been dealing with for his whole life; and which ultimately led to his fixation on murdering. It's clear he was brought up in that lifestyle, based on the actions of others around him in the original movie. So, to me, The Beginning was really just a natural chronicling of events that I've always believed based on what the films have shown.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't "have to", but remember Zombie was trying to go for realism. Personally, I think Zombie should have consulted with professionals about how that "perfect alignment" would really look like. To me, what Zombie did was utilize stereotypes about dysfunctional family life and what people believe psychopaths comes from.

I rewatched it before seeing the sequel, and I think those two scenes with Annie and her mother were what put me off. The more I see her in the remake, the more she really does look innocent. Those scenes just seem to be out of place for how the character acts later.

Ok, so for the review of the sequel. My opinion is, hardcore Halloween fans will hate it. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it either. I thought it was interesting, but I have to agree that it didn't feel entirely like a Halloween film. Aspects of it did, but Michael is much more brutal and vicious in this film, which comes across more as Jason. Michael usually kills very quickly and then does something with the body. This time, he seems to spend an awful lot of time repeatedly attacking the person, even after they are clearly dead. But, I have a theory about this that I won't share till you either watch the movie or read the synopsis on the page.

The "kill her for mommy" thing isn't there. The symbolism for it basically is, but no actual dialogue saying such. Also, for someone that says he didn't bother to watch any of the sequels, I felt like he stole the "blood link" theory from Halloween 5. I don't know if it will spoil anything for you (the premise that was up before basically alluded to it), but Laurie and Michael appear to share some sort of mental link, which again I would go into more detail about my theory on that after you accomplish one of those two things above. :D

Loomis is an asshole this time around. I think you might actually like Laurie more in this film. Brackett is probably the most likable, and tragic figure across both films. Annie is much more likable this time around as well. She seems to have grown past that juvenile stage of her life. The Zombie dialogue was doing so well early on in the film, and then it went to shit after about a 1/4 of the film. Only a few curses here and there, actual dialogue that wasn't really juvenile (minus a bit from one of the paramedics), and then it all went to hell and everyone just began cussing up a storm. I disagree with the reviewer that said Haddonfield had become a redneck central. I didn't see that. To me, Haddonfield looked about the same as it did in any of the other films. I think the reviewer doesn't understand that if you see only one aspect of the town, that doesn't constitute "the whole town". Every town has goths, rednecks, and upperclass. If I only show you goths, that doesn't mean the others don't exist, or that goths overrun the town. It just means that I'm not going to focus on something that's irrelevant to the story. Since Laurie's friends seem to mesh with her current state of mind, it's understandable to think that what you're going to primarily see is where Laurie is in her life, and not where Haddonfield is.

It is a very intersting movie, and no one will every be able to say Zombie did not make the Halloween series his own. The Deborah ghost things if very prominent, which you probably won't like, but as convoluted as it sometimes became, it still goes into my theory about what happens in the film. Overall, I'd say it was worth the money at the theater (though I think it will view better on the television), and you should go see it even if you ultimately hate every aspect of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting turn for Loomis, but not one that I'm entirely shocked about given his character in the first film. He may have been morally ambiguous, but underneath he was really just looking for the next big thing for his career. I think the only reason he stayed with Michael for so long was really because wanted to be the one to say "I fixed him". He couldn't. People tend to forget, he wrote "The Devil's Eyes" first, and it basically degraded the town. He was an asshole to begin with, IMO, it just wasn't that blatant. I think that after his encounter with Michael at the end of the remake he chose to take a safer road, so to speak, and use the events to find a door out of the psychiatry field.

Annie is in the movie from start to finish, she just isn't really seen beyond the Brackett house. That's where all her scenes basically take place. I think her role is more prominent in an in-universe fashion, but with probably less screen time than in the remake. It's weird. She's there less, but I felt like she was there more than before. I think it's because she's more of Laurie's "sister" now, than just a friend. She's family. You might find that "underused", but to me it was natural. Laurie is in a different place now because of her connection to Michael, and everything that happened. It's almost like you get two sides. You get her home life, with Annie and her dad, and then you get her life outside of home. No trailer that I'm aware of shows Annie's "death". Unless you're referring to that scene that's reminiscent of Ronnie's death. If so...well, I'll let you see the movie to see what happens there. There's a lot of flashbacks, hallucinations, and misdirections in the film and the trailers utilized them. Not saying that scene is any of those things, just pointing out that what you see in the trailer isn't necessarily even close to what you see in the film.

Here is a review from BloodyDisgusting, that I think actually embodies much of my own feelings, even the final wrap up of the guy's opinion. I've removed text that will spoil the movie for you:

I was originally planning on sitting back and letting ol BC write one of his epic six page reviews for Rob Zombie s HALLOWEEN II, but after hearing all of the intense negativity, I felt I should stand up and defend Zombie s rushed sequel that brings Michael Myers back to the big screen for the ninth time (he wasn t in HALLOWEEN 3). Since it s well known that I despise the remake from 2007, I felt that being the unlikely defender would give a little more weight to my positive outlook but don t get me wrong, H2 is littered with problems and is far from a good movie.

Usually before seeing a sequel, one would reflect back on the first film and focus on where the characters left off like in HALLOWEEN Laurie shoots Michael, Loomis appeared to have his eyes gouged out, and Annie Brackett was taken away in an ambulance but with H2, it s hard not to dwell on all of the problem that stemmed from Aint it Cool News early script review that kicked off production on a sour note. With all of the problems stemming from the screenplay by Zombie, HALLOWEEN had zero focus (it was half remake, half Zombie s vision), a rash of annoying cameos forced in, and scares that were replaced by loud noises and screaming. Beyond the opening sequence, where young Michael beats the crap out of a bully, the first HALLOWEEN is unwatchable.

Enter HALLOWEEN II, a film that from the beginning had me believing that Zombie would never in a million years listen to the naysayers and never learn from his mistakes; he proved me dead wrong. He kept the cameos to a minimum, as I never felt removed from the movie, he replaced banging and loud noises with ultra-violence, and most importantly he made HIS movie. No matter what direction you look at it, H2 is a Rob Zombie film from start to finish and it never loses its focus. At no point do you feel like he s trying to please the studio, nor throw in references for the hardcore fans; it s what he wants on screen and that s that. Is that a good thing? Yes. Does that mean it s a good film? No.

Zombie decides that he needs to visually portray Myers motivations as he brings Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie) back as a ghost, who walks with a white horse. Also joining the family reunion is little Michael Myers (recast with Chase Vanek), a visual representation of the death of his living self. What s incredibly odd is that Myers older sister Judith (Hanna Hall) is missing from the family gathering, which kind of voids out his motivation. In addition, Zombie s idea of why Michael does what he does takes a little too much from the FRIDAY THE 13TH motive as Deborah pushes him to have a little fun, although he also implies that it s just in their blood to kill. While far and few between, every single time we see Deborah, the horse and young Michael, it s hard to take the film seriously. The scenes appear completely out of place in this hardcore slasher film and bring the movie to a screeching halt, especially since they re so f*cking bizarre.

Adding to the script problems, Dr. Loomis character has NO place in H2 other than to be a device for Laurie to find out she s actually Michael s sister, something that could have been explained with just Loomis book. He s obnoxious, arrogant and a complete ass as he runs around the Nation promoting his brand new book based on Michael Myers. And what are the odds that he d be IN Haddonfiled the second Laurie needs help from ol Michael, leading to Loomis heroic(?) rescue? Zombie could have easily chopped him entirely from the movie, as he does absolutely NOTHING.

Speaking of Laurie being in need of rescue, Zombie makes the mistake of making her completely fallible. After the events from the first film, she s a mess and on the brink of complete self-destruction. We don t relate to her, we don t like her; in fact, we don t care if she lives or dies. What H2 was missing was a strong female lead, or at least a moment where Laurie becomes that. (<-- This I don't entirely agree with. Female leads should be strong by most accounts, but since this is a continuation, it's understandable that your protagonist would eventually show fallibility, given the extreme nature of what she went through. Even Buffy has done that)

It s incredibly obvious how quick this movie was put into production as Zombie kills time between scenes by having Michael Myers randomly come across local folk and then decimating them, twice over (by stabbing them like 652 times). While some of these scenes are incredibly cool, there s just no purpose for them other than to have Michael kill three more people before he finds Laurie. In fact, there are two scenes I vividly remember that wasted a good 10-15 minutes of screen time and achieved nothing and didn t do anything to drive the plot. Speaking of mayhem and murder, Zombie traded in loud noises for extreme violence, which turned some people off (we saw a few walk outs). H2 is straight up an exploitation flick filled with violence for the sake of violence. In my book that s typically an immediate FAIL, but there was something remotely entertaining about it in this film - maybe it was just nice to see Michael stabbing the living sh*t out of someone instead of banging a piece of wood against the ceiling for 10 minutes?

It s funny how I set out to defend the movie and I ve yet to say anything remotely positive about the film, other than the violence. That s sort of the tale of HALLOWEEN II, for every pro there s a con waiting. For example, the opening scene where Michael attacks Laurie in the hospital is astounding. From Laurie trying to run through the hotel with a cast on her leg to the brutal slaying of two employees, the opening of this film is f*cking great. There s even something about the cinematography that enchanting and the way Zombie shoots the end of the scene in the rain looks stunning. I remember thinking to myself, holy sh*t, please be this good, please, pleaseeee be this good! And then the scene ends [REMOVED SPOILER TEXT] What s even more aggravating is that it didn t have to be! It s almost as if Zombie wanted to sabotage his own film (which is obviously not the case). Seriously though, how do you open a movie with an incredible, eye-catching, uber-violent sequence and then say to your viewers, [REMOVED SPOILER TEXT] It s downright insulting.

The movie continues that way throughout as nearly every scene gives you a reason to have a great time, but then sneer a second later. What s even more baffling is the aforementioned scene where Deborah tells Michael to have a little fun, which results in the violent death of [REMOVED SPOILER TEXT]. What s so baffling? I m quite sure when they find [REMOVED SPOILER TEXT] body she s nude on the bathroom floor, which would mean Michael raped her? I m not the only person who thought that was the implication. This was an incredibly unnerving and uncomfortable moment in the film that s wrapped with a unique edit that was both captivating and shockingly original. So why am I so conflicted?

Along with the editing, the look of the film was creepy, dark and uncomfortable; Zombie s lack of score only intensified the effect. In retrospect, H2 felt like a Rob Zombie music video mind trip where nothing makes sense, yet you re completely entertained for an hour and a half. That s the odd beauty of Zombie s sequel as ugly as it gets, you can t stop from looking. Whether it s Deborah with a white horse or Laurie Strode screaming, "I'm Michael Myers' sister!," Zombie always has your attention. For better or worse, it s damn near entertaining. I didn t look at my watch once, never sighed and never thought to myself, "please end already," in fact, I found myself amped to see what came next.

Being in my shoes isn t easy as technically H2 is loaded with problems, and yet, I had a great time in the theater. In fact, I might even go see it AGAIN in theaters. This speaks to volumes as I rarely (and I mean rarely) see a movie twice. There s just something about HALLOWEEN II that s peculiar, odd and even intriguing. Maybe it s the fact that Zombie made HIS movie instead of OUR movie, or maybe it s the sheer simplicity and brutality of it all, but in the end I think hardcore horror fans will enjoy this and I think it s a sequel most will hesitantly embrace in their HALLOWEEN collection.I'm curious is this intrigues you more or less. P.S. If you want to spoiler yourself and read what I removed, the review is here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

H2 break

I think that maybe he started out that way, but by the end he was just about trying to a financial way to better himself after he realized he couldn't get through to Michael. A last ditch effort to stop Michael doesn't change anything. If anything, it was because he felt guilty for writing that book and only later realizing that Laurie was Michael's sister.

It's not that Deborah has a white horse, it's what the white horse symbolizes. The start of the film gives its definition of "White Horse" as per a psychotherapy definition. Zombie provides the definition so that it somewhat makes sense as to why its present. It's not totally random, but if you don't accept the idea of psychosis, which I think many reviewers don't, then you won't accept the idea of Michael seeing his mother with a white horse.

I think the reason that many people feel like this isn't a "Halloween" film, and the same with Zombie's remake, is because you see so much of Michael. I'm not referring to "seeing Michael" from the standpoint of explaining Michael, but seeing him from the standpoint of actually seeing all of his actions. In previous films, Michael had the Jason complex - he would just appear. In Zombie's films, you literally see him doing everything. In HII, you see him trekking across fields on his way to Haddonfield. It's very different from what you're used to. Plus, the other films had Michael able to drive, and since Zombie established that he never learned he basically limited the character to walking everywhere. It's very interesting. One thing I will say, this is probably Zombie's most beautifully shot film to-date.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But was he trying to save Laurie, or was he trying to 'fix' Michael, again? His motives are not that clear, because he seems more concerned with Michael than Laurie. Ali in F13 seemed more about avenging his comrades than saving Chris. I never thought Brady redeemed himself at all in H4. It's cliched is what it is. You have a character that you've created that is either an asshole, or neither likable nor unlikable, so you throw in this last minute "I've come to save the day" to try and make them likable.

The horse does have a metaphorical meaning, so you'll probably be alright with it. I mean, I understand why people laugh when they see it in scenes, but to me the people laughing don't really seem to have an understanding of symbolism. As for the beard, it's there quite a bit, but ironically it doesn't feel unnatural, because the scenes when you see it are ones where it probably was not entirely necessary to have the mask on - remember, in the remake, the mask seemed to symbolize his murderous side. Also, the way Zombie films Mane when he doesn't have the mask on, it's very shadowy around his face so that his eyes become the most highlighted feature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Protect his g/f, or try and save her so that she would take him back? Remember, he cheated on her right before she got there and she knew it. Seemed less like true character redemption, and more like a stupid ploy by him to try and win her back - especially since the slut he slept with was dead. Thus, doesn't win me back over.

I never saw Gale's actions as "redemption", because they merely seemed to fit her character. She was ruthless, and cutthroat, and the kind of person that if given the chance she would probably do exactly what she did. Now, I think her real "redemption" actually takes place in Scream 2, as you see that she's basically reverted back to her bitchy self, and it isn't until later that she's trying to work with everyone to catch the killer, instead of doing it for herself.

I generally hate last minute efforts to redeem yourself, unless it's truly inspiring. Jumping in front of a moving train is not that inspiring, because the train is just going to keep on coming. But, doing something that truly saves someone, something that doesn't just prolong the inevitable, now that is redemption. Otherwise, it's just stupid and cliched. For instance, Spike sacrificing himself at the end of Buffy. For all of the havoc he caused, his slow journey (which was extremely rocky, and often took backward steps) toward redemption really didn't make it until the last minute decision to stay behind so everyone else could escape. Sacrifice is the true redemption - otherwise it's just suicide.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brady was an asshole, who got what he deserved. :D Again, the illusion of sacrifice is just that, an illusion, when there's no possibility of you actually preventing harm from coming to someone else.

Ok, I'm not familiar with the comics, but if a character saves the life of one character in issue 10, by sacrificing themselves, then in issue 12 the character that was saved is killed then that is redemption. But, if his death lent nothing to Kelly being saved (i.e. the assassin, or whoever, wasn't actually stopped) then it wasn't. It was a poor excuse to try and right many wrongs, and it was a failure. The attempt is nothing without the means, it's just a half-assed action that probably lends itself to other half-assed actions those types of characters have done in the past.

Let's take Loomis from the original Halloween II. Let's say he was an asshole, and thus his last act at redemption was blowing Michael up, but to do that he wouldn't be able to leave the room either. He redeemed himself, because he stopped the bad guy. He saved Laurie. Only when their actions actually cause change can one consider it redemption and not just plain stupidity. Had Brady not run back to Michael, and left with Rachel, he would most likely still be alive. Michael was in no position to get to those two - Brady took it upon himself to try and act like the hero and save the day. It backfired, and he accomplished absolutely nothing for his actions, because Michael still caught up to Rachel.

My point is, redemption cannot happen any place some character feels like trying to have it. It has to be the right place, the right time, and actually cause change. If the character death was not worth the death, then they cannot redeem themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Only heroic if it causes change, or at least could cause change. Brady's death couldn't have caused any change, at least his execution to stop Michael was so poorly conceived that the only way he got redemption was because people pitied his idiotic attempt to stop someone that had yet to be stopped by a dozen other people.

Ah, here's the thing. Had Michael still killed Laurie after all that Loomis had done, then it still would have been a sacrifice of redemption. His actions were so huge, that the fact that Michael would continue to survive beyond an explosion, and be in flames as he kills Laurie suggests that what he was trying to accomplish was unknowingly larger than he could possibly ever accomplish. Thus, his death becomes tragic, and redemption is still met. Not the same with Brady, who tries and fails to shoot Michael with a shotgun, and then gets killed immediately. If you cannot accomplish a simple feat, then you don't get redemption.

The attempt must mean something, but for it to mean something you have to do something. If your actions are no better than some random character who was killed 10 minutes prior, then those were not redemption actions. Those were unavoidable consequences for being an asshole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't remember Tina, that's why I haven't commented on her since you first mentioned her. What exactly happened with her? She was Rachel's friend in Part 5, right?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right, I remember now. Well, I kind of liked her from the start. She has a bond with Jamie, which already puts her in a positive light given Jamie's history and current state of mind. I think one act of selfishness doesn't necessarily doom the character into needing redemption (especially when she is not related to the character and is not aware that Rachel is even dead at this time) - thus, sacrificing herself so Jamie could run - Jamie's peril was more real than Rachel's was in Part 4 when Brady tried to do the same thing - would be enough contrition to make up for going out with her BF.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Tina and Annie is that Jamie is not Tina's responsibility. Lindsey was Annie's responsibility, which she pushed off on Laurie so she could go have sex with Paul. That's just shitty. Tina loves Jamie, and clearly likes spending time with her, but Jamie isn't her sister and she has a life of her own. Again, she also doesn't know that Rachel is dead, and I think had she known that she probably would have stayed by Jamie's side.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be just "Dr. Loomis", because I don't think anyone calls him "Sam Loomis". It's always "Dr. Loomis". I figured that fighting to change it to "Dr. Loomis" would be harder than just getting the "J" dropped. If you want to start a page rename discussion for something like that, we can do it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't please everyone is what I've found. If he made a film that followed the same tired formula then people would get pissed off for him not doing something different. If his "different film" doesn't match someone's personal opinion of what a "different Halloween" film would look like, then he pisses people off. Zombie was screwed from the get go. I agree with some of what he says (like Zombie's in ability to write dialogue, which you and I have discussed), but everything else just seems like fanboyish (pardon the term) bias.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

H2 break 2

Again, my feelings were that a part from the dialogue, Halloween II was a rather enjoyable movie and it manages to keep drawing my attention back to it regardless of its flaws.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to get that first one in TPB, but right now I'm still just trying to find a job. I've been slowly working on Freddy's article, as well as starting Leatherface's. I'm onto Freddy's comics now, which is interesting because the Nightmare website has the first two comics (the ones released by Marvel) on the website, so I can read them for myself. They aren't bad. The writing kind of sucks for Freddy, and it's all black and white (apparently Marvel didn't believe in color for this two issue series), but they're entertaining. Hopefully, I'll be able to find a job here soon and start to catch up on my movies and comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get Freddy done and then I'll work on Leather afterward. Um, I don't know what the Nightmare website has. I checked the next series of comics, but I couldn't get any to pop up. There might be some others, and I just haven't gotten to them yet. One of the reasons Freddy has taken so long is because of the lack of sources I have on him. Unlike Jason, Freddy doesn't have a huge docu-book (or 2, like Jason) that chronicles everything in the franchise. There were a couple of them over a decade ago, and I have one, but most are out of print and cost a fortune to acquire. Plus, the one I have is really shitty when it comes to good details about Freddy. Also, the literature appearances have been holding me back. I cannot find decent plot summaries of what happens, so a lot of them take me searching around forever to get at least a basic idea of what happens so that I can put something down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I do use the comics, and the novels themselves, as the primary source. It's just finding the enough plot info on them so that I can actually report what happens is the hard part. I think every Nightmare novel, with exception to the ones that were published a few years ago, is out of print. The same with the comics.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your take on the new Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2? It seems they're basing their story about the Civil War storyline. SHH has 2 videos, in the top right of the screen: Iron asking superheroes to register and Captain A. asking them to fight it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about getting it--probably not when it first comes out--as I like RPGs. I might go get the first one to see what I'm in for, since they say they didn't really change the gameplay from the first one.

That was the best "Lana/straight from the show itself" image that I could find. I think she looks good in the image, I don't think it really matters if it's from a faux reality episode. If you can find a better once, I'll be glad to swap it out, but I had to search for some "in-show" image so that this stupid confusion over "actor"/"character" shit wouldn't happen again. That was such a bogus speedy deletion, it was like they didn't even bother to read the image page to see the source and where the image comes from, just because some stupid IP stuck on Kristen Kreuk's page as her primary image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Did you like those Marvel trailers on SHH? What do you think about these?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like it. I think I saw one Batman comment, but most people are saying he looks like Neo. Eh, maybe, but Souders and Peterson have already said that it makes no sense that when developing a visual identity for himself that he would get it right the first time. Especially given this dark path he seems to be on now that he has given up on his humanity side. I like it because it's a "costume" for him, which is good. They've already said that Chloe will have words to say about his particular choice in color scheme and wardrobe.

As for Lana, I'm not in the mood to fight that. I left a message for the Admin who deleted it, they can easily reinstate the image over top of the one that's there if they choose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching your progress with that article, and it's coming along nicely. I'd look at Watchmen as a good comic example to follow (unless you already have your own). My only thing is, is the character section really needed? If there's more to go there, great, but right now it's kind of puny. It seems like what's OOU could be covered in the Development section. Otherwise, it just seems like a place where we're identifying what film each character comes from. 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In a page review, it would be the first thing requested cut as it currently stands. The argument would simply be, if they have sections on their respective film character lists, then a link from the plot section should be placed so that the reader can see where the character comes from. You don't even need to identify what film they come from in the plot section, for the simple fact that their individual sections will identify which film they come. Given that what film they come from doesn't have any overarching value to this specific article (the fact that Tommy Jarvis comes from The Final Chapter is irrelevant, unless you already know what happens in The Final Chapter). Just understanding that these characters have faced Jason and Freddy before, in other films is enough. Right now, it's the weakest section of the article, and wouldn't hold up in any type of article review. IMO, it either needs to be greatly expanded, or just dropped entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a balance. I wouldn't explain who Jason is on every single Friday the 13th film article, because I can link to his page that covers it. We shouldn't have to backtrack everything on one article if a link to another article will suffice. For instance, I wouldn't explain what parkour in Casino Royale; I'd simply acknowledge that that was the event, and allow the article on parkour to explain what it is. How do you know the name "Rennie" would mean nothing? The character already exists, thus we assume the reader already knows who Rennie is (or whoever). If they don't, then they click the link on the character's name and they see who they are. You shouldn't have to go, "this character appeared in this film". Also, you shouldn't write the article with the opinion that you'll never take it to a review. That shouldn't be the point. I'm surprised that you of all people would argue that since it's not going to go to review that it can be organized however, especially given your work on Buffy, Faith, and the other character articles. But whatever, I have no intention of messing with it. I'm merely giving you my requested opinion on the matter. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it (and do some c/eing, if you don't mind), but not for GAR. I think you should do a formal request for that. This way a neutral pair of eyes can look over the article. More eyes makes for better reviewing. That, or do a peer review first and see if you can get lots of eyes. Actually a peer review would probably be better, given that if you are "lucky" enough to get a GAR-reviewer immediately then you'll probably fail the GA test on the simple fact that this mini-series is still on-going and won't finish until November. Most articles (though, I have seen some that are exceptions to this) don't get passed as GA simply because it's hard to say "broad coverage" when your subject matter has not completed its run (whether that's a film not having been released or a comic book series that has a limited run and has not completed it yet). That's why I think a PR would probably be best first, then I'd put the GAR once the final issue is released.

P.S. Did you see that I changed Clark's picture?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point in time, it might be best to break the plot section up into subsections by issue. I know it'll be tedious, but it's probably easier that way until the series finishes so that it's clear that you just didn't forget to finish the plot summary. Then, when the series is over you can remove the section headers. But, that's up to you. I've never written a comic page, let alone one that was currently being released.

I liked the old image as well, but I figured that there has been some talk about his current costume, and I'm sure they'll be more details about it revealed to the point that I may be able to flesh out a complete section on his "costume" (assuming of course I can get some info on his red jacket and blue shirt), so I figured that finding a suitable image that had his traditional "costume" would probably be best. I'd prefer once that was a little less profile, and more upper body, but it'll do for now. Maybe I can get a better once later (might have to see if I can capture one on the computer's DVD player). Speaking of, have you picked Smallville back up yet? I've been re-watching it with my new roommate (my g/f and I are living with a mutual friend until she graduates in the Spring and moves back to Florida), and we're up to the halfway point of season five right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Break 3

Yeah, but season six you get Green Arrow for half the season, as well as the first appearance of the Justice League. Plus, you get Bizarro and Martian Manhunter. It's a price to pay I guess. You'll love season eight, because it's primarily a Clark/Lois season for than anything else. I love Everybody Loves Raymond. The last season is one of my favorites.

Yeah, I've gotten Ali (the roommate) to watch Nightmare 1, 3 and New Nightmare, plus the two Zombie Halloween movies. Friday is on the list, but since there isn't any upcoming movie it isn't an immediate necessity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what are you going to watch for your live-action superhero fix?

For the most part, Ali is largely unimpressed with some of the early slasher films. She did think New Nightmare was better than the others, and she had nightmares after watching Zombie's Halloween II. LOL. She's getting into Smallville. She literally broke down into full on tears when Jonathan died. Complete with the snot and everything. That episode was so funny to watch her reaction with, because at first she was super happy that Clark told Lana his secret and they were together. Then super sad (no tears) when Lana died. Then super pissed when Clark turned back time and Lana was alive again. Then fully on tears when Jonathan died. She hates Lana, but ironically, is pleased when she and Clark are together.

Oh, I didn't show her Dream Master or the others because I wasn't trying to make her watch an entire series she wasn't completely interested in; so I picked just the ones Craven did (since overall they are the best). We haven't retread over Halloween, as she's saw the original two a long time ago. If I do, then I'd certainly just show 1, 2, and H20.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dream Warriors is cheesy. I find Freddy's Revenge to be underrated. IMO, it's scarier than 3 and maybe even scarier than 1 - but I think a lot of that lends itself more to its musical score than anything else.

Something was kind of lost when Jonathan left, but I think once you get to season 8 you'll appreciate the show more. I was very pleased with that season, and I cannot wait till season 9.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Jesse is whiny, but to be honest I never thought about the homosexual subtext till I read about it. I liked Alice in The Dream Master, but didn't really like her all that much in The Dream Child. Kind of like how I liked Kristen in Dream Warriors, but felt that she became oddly weak-willed in The Dream Master.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, her character just isn't intriguing to me in 5. It's like Tommy in F13p6. The movie is fun, but he's rather annoying to watch. Maybe it was because of the unexplained "normalcy" of his behavior, when we just had a shut-off Tommy in Part 5.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just unimpressed with TW in that film (we won't get into the unexplained accent ;D).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of watching things out of order, I just picked up the re-releases of F13p7 and F13p8 on DVD. I cannot wait to watch the remastered versions, with the 5.1 sound. Oh, did you see that Halloween II is supposedly being released in the UK on October 9?

Matthews has that thick California accent-much more than Corey Feldman has. It stands out when he's acting.

So, after Freddy you're going to watch Smallville, right? ;D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

American is American? LOL. That's like me saying Scottish and Irish are basically the same. ;D No, I get it.

Eh, I never really care about the people in F13 movies. Rarely does a final girl actually make me care enough that she survives, but I think that's because there is typically an overrun of "final girls". Frankly, I think we need more "final guys", or final girls who are outside of the mold.

Out of spite, I've just ordered Nightdance and the trade paperback for FvJvA.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in my own personal F13 film that I have in my head, the setting would be Crystal Lake in the winter. There would be a diversity of friends there, with one your typical "final girl" actually being a lesbian. Now, before you chide me about some "typical hetero male fantasy", in order for this to work there can be no actual lesbianic scene in the film. You can have your obligatory tits and sex, but not between the "typical final girl" and her girlfriend. The girlfriend herself would have to have some type of attitude issue. Basically, make her a bitch (not to the "typical final girl", but just to everyone else, as you need to show just how much she cares for the "tfg"). In other words, she just doesn't take a lot of shit, she's basically the outcast of the group. This way, you aren't rooting for her, but for the "tfg". You have to make her the most likable character. You have to explain why she could love such a person, but at the same time demonstrate that it's not out of naivety (i.e. allow her to point out how the bitchy girlfriend only acts that way out of self-defense mechanisms - in other words, backstory for the character). The "tfg" cannot be purely innocent (obviously, being a lesbian removes the "purity" out of her), but having a drink or smoking a joint isn't a death sentence so long as she's more responsible about it (i.e. you're not taking shot after shot, but having a beer is just fine). She needs to be relatable to people. That way, when Jason kills her at the beginning of the third act you can (hopefully) switch your rooting meter from Jason/"tfg" (if you were hopefully rooting for her to live) over to the bitch girl, who would now have a reason to be hunting Jason instead of him hunting her. Kind of switch the roles in the cat and mouse game that's played. At least, it always sounds good in my head. lol.

I ordered Nightdance, that's about what I can afford right now with no actual income. I got it for $13, which is pretty cheap. It was marked down from $20. Angel will have to wait.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot all about Kennedy. Yeah, someone like her would work well in a F13 film as a non-typical final girl. Well, kissing is kissing, but I'm referring to full on sexual relations on camera. You can insinuate it, and cut to something else, but I think if you show it then any care you have for a character is replaced by lust - as such, you generally stop caring about their safety. For instance, when Sidney has sex with Billy in Scream, you barely see anything (a few clothes removed, but she's basically still covered the whole time and you typically get close ups of her face instead of seeing Billy actually pumping away at her).

I think you could kill a gay guy and not make it seem like it was because of his sexuality. So long as he doesn't have any sex right before hand, you cannot argue that it's because of his sexuality. If Jason is killing everyone, then clearly he doesn't discriminate between hetero and homo. Otherwise, it sounds like you're getting into that Ianto Jones territory, where people think that gay guys require special treatment in fiction simply because they're gay. Not saying that a gay guy "final guy" wouldn't be interesting, and certainly a change, just that should he die it shouldn't be construed as punishment for his sexuality. Plus, it would depend on how they handle the gay guy. If it's stereotypical, then he's just a joke. If he's more like a normal guy, who just happens to be attracted to men then you have a better character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it would have to be something that felt natural and not simply thrown in for the sake of pleasing horny teenagers. Otherwise, it'll be picked a part for being irrelevant, unnecessary, and probably just crude. As for her being more like Kennedy, her skills would have to be something average, but effective. She cannot be some deux ex machina of a girl, who's out camping but is also a trained MMA fighter with a military background. A strong willed girl, who can handle herself but just as easily get in over her head.

Well, in theory, wasn't there a F13 were the majority of male actors were gay? I guess technically, Jason has killed gay men.

I was actually going to mention David as being a gay character who was handled relatively well. He seemed more real than most gay characters you see in horror films (what relatively few there are).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I haven't given much thought to other elements in a F13 film, beyond what I told you. I'm not sure I'd like some sort of anthology type of series with F13, or even those more "backstory" comics turned into a film. They're good for comics, but not what you really want in a film. I guess one important element to include would be explaining why someone would even go to Crystal Lake after news of teenagers being murdered by a woodland psycho. For the first 4 F13 films, it was kind of ok, because the three sequels all take place within a couple of days of each other and thus the news might not travel as fast when you're out in the sticks. But, you'd have to explain why someone was going there and not use the cliched "there's a legend..." crap.

As for gay characters in horror films: Bo (played by Milo Ventimiglia) in Cursed; obviously David in Bride of Chucky; Daughters of Darkness is about lesbian vampires...but that's probably not quite what you're looking for; Lafayette Reynolds (played by Nelsan Ellis) in True Blood. I had to look those up, so that tells you just how few and far between they are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that it was. I was referring more to those comics like Pamela's Tale and whatnot. F13 is not the Trilogy of Terror. It's also not Hellraiser, and shouldn't regulate its lead character to minutia just to tell a different story (granted, Inferno was pretty good for originality, but the idea of "you're already in Hell" was overplayed by the sequel that followed). If this was a F13 TV show, then ok, but it's not. It might be something you'd personally like, but not something the masses would like. If you create a film just for one audience that's exactly what you'll get. If that's what you want, then you might as well send the series direct-to-video, just like Hellraiser.

Ah, but that's an explaination. People coming because it's a great lake with an "urban legend" is ridiculous. People coming because it's the "famous lake where a killer named Jason butchered countless teens" is still ridiculous, but more believable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The story has more to do "about" Jason, than "with" Jason. People come to see Jason. They don't come to see some girl exact revenge only to confront Jason in the final 10 minutes and be killed herself. That's Hellraiser shit, where we see the puzzle box the whole time, but Pinhead doesn't show up till the very end to tell the individual in question that they've really just been in Hell this whole time.

The "people" you talk to probably don't read the comics either, and if you presented it to them they'd probably hate it just as much as the F13 films. Sin City is not F13 (referring to the comics). That comic, and subsequently the film, worked only because it was overly stylized and based on a film noir concept. That's a concept that's been around for quite some time, and was a huge genre for awhile. Look at the comic books that have translated well to the screen (not things based on comics, but things that we adapted directly from), they're typically those over stylized comics (Watchmen, 300, etc.). A lot of their attraction in cinema comes from how the story is told visually. Only fans actually care about Jason the character. Regular moviegoers just come to see him kill people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort about dumbing down characters. What I said was, if it's a F13 film, you cannot have Jason as a background figure. Yes, the storyline involves him, but he's a background figure nonetheless. Also, spending half a film fighting a single person wouldn't be all that entertaining. It never is, no matter what the film. You have to have other stuff to do. I give you Jason Goes to Hell as a prime example. That movie failed on so many levels, and one of it was because you barely see Jason in the entire film - yet the storyline revolves around him and his family. We've had the same discussion before about what happens in comics not always translating well to film. FvJvA wouldn't translate well to film. You have 3 different tones that are set. In a comic universe it's easier to meld those things together; not so much with film.

F13 isn't Sin City. Sin City is an adaptation of a graphic novel that has multiple stories that intertwine multiple characters on different levels. That's they way it is. The film did nothing but put it together. You cannot replicate that formula with any film series and automatically hit gold. If you're working with a unique story, sure, because Quentin Tarantino has already showed us that we can see things out of order and still follow what happens. What you are requesting would be definition violate your own beliefs about dumbing down characters. First, you cannot have a 2.5 hour F13 film. As such, you'd automatically have to dumb down the characters so that you can introduce them quick enough to kill them off. Otherwise, you'd spend the entire time developing a character, only to kill them off quickly so that you can make way for the next segment in your anthology. The F13 story doesn't lend itself to that type of storytelling. Having short comics is one things. Having F13 short films is something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, in the original films you always see him, you just don't see his face. He's always there, killing people from the start. Anthologies don't work well on theatrical horror. Just look at Trilogy of Terror, Creepshow, Campire Tales, the original Tales From the Crypt, etc. They don't translate well to cinema. Even Sin City isn't a true anthology, because it's all one big story that's just just told through various view points (in the vein of [[[edit]Rashomon (film)|Rashamon]]).

I know FvJvA wouldn't translate well because of the tones of their respective films. Evil Dead is campy, over the top humor. It works for Evil Dead. F13 doesn't employ that type of humor. Nightmare tried it to an extent, and as a result the character became a joke. When you try to mix those elements in film it comes off a jilted, and lacks smoothness. It feels more like you have multiple films masquerading as one. It's much easier for comics to blend. In the Marvel universe, you don't have a lot of trouble believing that Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, etc. can co-exist. It's much harder for film to pull that off (I'm rather apprehensive about the upcoming Avengers movie because of that, as Iron Man is a completely different tone of film than The Incredible Hulk). FvJvA might not have had interest from Raimi and company, but it would have failed as a film. It took 20 years for them to "perfect" FvJ (and it still wasn't perfect). It's hard to do crossovers effectively in cinema.

For Abused, what you keep describing is a film about Maggie. Exactly what does Jason do throughout this comic book? What you describe is something that would be great for TV, but not for film.

Not much continuity between the films? The only time it freaks out is when you get to Jason Goes to Hell and Jason X. Before that, every story picks up where the last one leaves off, and continues it. At least it doesn't have 3 different continuities like Halloween.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Exploring Jason's characterization is one thing, but there is a difference between a movie about Jason that develops the other characters and a movie about a girl that develops Jason's character. I'd rather have the former.

But you have to remember that with the Friday remake, and the upcoming Nightmare remake, those campy elements have been removed. We're back to "serious" horror (if you could call it that), and Ash wouldn't fit in with that. It would be like Freddy vs. Jason vs. Michael - you know how it would end.

The reason it's better for TV and not film is because TV has 42 minutes. Film has 90 minutes (if we're talking about horror). As such, you can make those anthology-esque F13 stories into perfect television episodes. In a 90 minutes film you're talking about 30 minutes (or less, depending on the number of stories you have), which is not a lot of time. Hell, even 42 minutes is sometimes not long enough to cover what you need. How many times have you watched a 42 minutes episode that introduced a new character just for that one episode? How many times have you felt like there was so much more you could do with that character? Probably a lot, at least I have. For instance, Ryan from Smallville (the telepathic boy in season 1 and season 2). He could have been developed so much more, but there is a limited amount of time you can spend on things.

Nancy is only ever seen in 3 of them, and they're spread out in the chronology of the series. She's briefly mentioned in Part 2, and never heard of again after Dream Warriors until that non-non-fiction New Nightmare.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concept, I just don't think it would work effectively for a feature film. Those types of stories don't do well in feature films. They do better as part of a medium that is designed for quick storytelling. Even Sin City isn't like that, because all of the stories are connected. Most of them are all about getting to the same point in the story, just from different sides. Adapting it as part of a larger, overall story is completely different though. Having a character that was adapted from that is something that can be done, but as part of a larger story that still focuses on Jason. You could adapt that into a feature length story, but making subtle changes. The girl is an admirer of Jason, so change it so that she lures these bullies out to Crystal Lake to get her revenge and pay homage to Jason's "ghost". Only, she doesn't realize that Jason isn't dead. Only in the end does she realize that several of the people killed weren't killed by her, but by Jason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean if it would fail that you'd admit it just doesn't translate well to film? ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless it resembled Part VIII, or JGtH, or JX, or maybe even Part V.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Laurie's car crash.

You took out the cause of Laurie's fake death from the Michael Myers article for Halloween 4. I believe it was menntioned in Halloween 4. I'm not reverting the edit because I haven't seen the movie in a while but just wanted to tell you.--Darkness2light (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Jason

Well, some of us, myself included, would like to see any possible "final fate" for Jason. In the movie series, many can assume Jason burning in Earth 2's atmosphere is his final death scene. "Is not explained how he is alive again in Jason X". Freddy resurrected him in Freddy vs. Jason, they had FvJ in mind when they made Jason X, so they needed no explanation until they made FvJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostkaiba297 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply: FvJvA: NW

I'd love to get you a pic but, well, my scanner is out of commission and has been for a while. If I can get it to work anytime soon I'll be sure to upload the panel for you though. Really sorry, and nice work on the article. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The series is decent so far, I find (don't have issue three yet, been kind of behind on comics). And yeah, I've noticed the artwork gets shaky here and there, the first series had the same problem (love Jason's appearance though, the half mask thing is pretty awesome looking). The writing is also kind of rushed I found (I think I read somewhere the original length was eight or twelve issues until Wildstorm axed those plans). They seem to have gotten rid of one aspect of the first series I found annoying though - Ash giving a monologue at the start of every issue. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Read about the third issue here and there. Heard Maggie makes out with her dad or something... And yeah, the survivors all interacting (Tommy's introduction is badass) and all the continuity porn is very cool. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, random moments of asskicking in A New Beginning aside Tommy was always pretty geeky (especially the Thom Matthews version, I found). Freddy's Dead is also low on my list; it was bad, made even worse by the fact that it actually had the potential to be good if they took the material seriously and got rid of a lot of the ludicrous elements. I think they tried the whole "evil Maggie" thing in a nineties comic that got cancelled, so its nice to see the concept revisited. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno which Tommy I like more, to me they're about equal. If I was really pressed to pick though I think I'd go with Matthews too (the guy was really good in Return of the Living Dead; for some odd reason I always felt they should've had a scene of him wearing the big glasses the previous Tommys had, like when he's skimming through the occult books). I think they'll handwave Maggie's current state by saying she's brainwashed or something and yeah, there's about four different versions of Jacob now (nineties comics, the short stories collection, that Black Flame book and now Nightmare Warriors). Also, funny you mentioned the She-Hulk/Maggie comparison before, I think Lisa Zane actually voiced She-Hulk in one of the old Hulk cartoons (only remembered reading that little bit of info now). -- Lord Crayak (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Razor blade glove? Sounds pretty cool. Might be another movie reference, since I think Maggie found something like that as a kid in Freddy's Dead in Freddy's trophy room (think so, anyway). -- Lord Crayak (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)