![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I was going to have to do it. I love his little display of naiveté there "What, my poor little link is spam"?
Daniel Case
19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, let's get real here. I'm sincerely sorry I did something I wasn't supposed to, but please bear in mind that it was with good intentions. I offered my apologies for Eric having to revert all the changes I did, and also I explained that it was really not clear to me that these kinds of links are not appreciated. I'm not a spammer, just an avid blogger. No hard feelings regarding the removal of my links, but you don't have to make fun of me either.
The point I'm trying to make it that in the process of entering my links, there was no clear notice telling me what is appropriate and what not. A simple link to your policy whould have stopped me adding those links in the first place. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, November 1, 2006
Appreciate the time and effort you guys put into this, Wikipedia rulez ;-) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, November 1, 2006
Hmm, I hadn't rechecked the blog to see, but that's interesting. I say, if the official blog has removed that bit of information then we should remove it as well under the grounds that "the official blog that held the source, confirming Bruce's role as a Matre'd, has been removed and as such is no longer a verifiable cite for this information". Or, something along those lines, at least that is my opinion on the subject. But, that's a good catch by you either way. Bignole 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Got your message. Nice of you to take the time to read the article. Bignole said he'd get back to me in a few days also, so I'll tap into both your expertise and work it out. I'll let you know what happens. It's nice to see fellow Wikipedians lending a hand. Lately, I was beginning to feel a little beat up by some of the other editors (Ace Class Shadow). Reynoldsrapture 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that we may need to file for a semi-protection of the page to stop needless rumor edits by Anons. I think if this continues we will have to because many "regular" editors will be forced to come dangerously close to their 3 reverts trying to correct these edits. Bignole 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I just filed the protection request. Bignole
Yeah, it seems as though if someone finds the image on the internet, even though others have taken it down at the request from Sony, that it's ok to use the ones that some sites didn't take down. Bignole 16:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert, because it's part of a major story arc; I just reworded. In my opinion, there can never been too many citations. It's always better to make sure you say where you got, even if you've already said so earlier in the page, than to come across someone that's like "hey there's no cite for this, you're plagarizing" or some BS like that. Bignole 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to go ahead with that you can, you wouldn't be violating the 3RR. 3RR doesn't apply to an actual change in the article that hasn't been reverted. Unless someone decides they don't like it and reverts it back, your initial change doesn't constitute a "revert". Bignole 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The guy finally admitted that he got the image from the ComicCon footage, and when he gave me a link to his source ironically it had been removed from the page (according to him, I can't view any "entertainment" while at work). I told him we can't use it because the footage was "private" showing, not public, and Sony has requested that all Venom images be removed. Hopefully he won't put it back up there, but you never know. Thanks for taking a look for me, since I'm kind of inhibited at work now that they blocked all images on Wikipedia. Bignole 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, did you consider my remarks uncivil also, in which I asked the person with the "Get out" comment to make constructive contributions and respect the right of others to contribute as well? I ask because in reverting, you removed my comment as well - and also an innocent sentence from December about how many episodes were in certain seasons of MMC, which the IP person removed tonight after denying this morning that he or she removed the whole comment last night (but history shows otherwise.) Please look over the history again. If necessary I can live with my second request for civility being gone, but at the very least that sentence from December should be there, accurate or not (especially since we don't know for sure, either way). Also, a much more severe bit of incivility is the subject header at the bottom of the page. Regards. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I was aware that you were attempting to reformat the article but I was not aware that these sections were a work in progress. I did not even know that you specifically added them. But I'd be happy to give you some suggestions. First, anything with the casting I would discuss in the cast section. Perhaps either placing the text after the description of the character or creating a few paragraphs at the bottom of the section. I generally dislike sectioning of the production section, however it's not always a bad thing. If you take a look at the articles I've brought to featured status on the Star Wars prequel films then you can see how I prefer to format film articles. I generally put the production section on top, above the synopsis, because otherwise the infobox will push the photos inside the synopsis section down and sometimes can create an odd "text mush". You will notice if you do so right now (or take a look at the records) that placing the production section make a "prettier picture" inside the synopsis section. :) The Filmaker 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Someone decided to tag that as "getting back" at me and I forgot that rule. I'll put a hangon tag like I should. Sorry again and thanks for the heads up. - WarthogDemon 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Erikster. User:Bignole informed me that another editor, User:Piecraft, created his own template, Template: Horrormovie Icons. The problem is that this template is almost an exact copy of Bignole's Template: Horror Icons, which was created first as you'll probably remember from my documented "Horror Icons War" on my "Discussion page" [ [1]]. I believe that creating the template is User:Piecraft's way of circumventing the protection on Template: Horror Icons that resulted after the edit wars on the template so that he can add his own "horror icons" to the list.
In addition, User:Bignole informed me that User:Piecraft replaced Template: Horror Icons with his Template: Horrormovie Icons on most of the horror-related pages such as Michael Myers (Halloween). Take a look at the history [ [2]]. By the way, notice how User:The Scourge deleted Bignole's Horror Icon's template and then Piecraft placed his/hers on the page? Conspiracy? Sock Puppets?
Anyways, can you or another editor please delete Piecraft's template? It's just a sneaky way to get around protections in order to add things of your own.
( FF7SquallStrife7 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
I added that reference because before it wasn't clear what was actually going to be used. It seemed good to have a link to Ledger saying they literally handed him The Killing Joke and nothing else. Bignole
Could you please puit back my comment on the YouTube footage on Spider-Man 3's talk page? I thought that would link to images we could post here on Wikipedia. After all, everybody likes spoilers. Happy contributing! 70.58.211.220
I just glanced at it, but it's looking good. I put a plot tag in there, cause that thing was a novel. Also, I think the opening paragraph could be rewritten, with some things better placed on the page. When I have a better chance to actually read through it (it's kind of late right now, so I'm not all here) I'll see what/if anything needs to be done. It's funny you should be doing this because I was just going to start working on the first two Spider-Man films. Bignole 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On two points, I first do not consider myself arguing interpretations, though maybe the anonymous user is, but instead correcting the anonymous editor on the events that transpired in the film, upon which he is basing his interpretations. While I mentioned interpretations in my original reply, I merely did so in an attempt to seem less arrogant or condescending as I went on to correct the details of the scene he was misinformed of. Secondly, I am lost as to what edit of mine you are referring to with your request not to edit another user's profane comment. If you could please clarify, thanks in advance of your reply. -- Viewdrix 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dab edit. I happened to be looking at your page and was like "wow, Hugh Jackman fan"..lol. So I went to it, knowing it was probably in good shape anyway if you were on it, and it was. I just put a "citation" tag where I thought one should be. I'm not even watching the page. I have a test, and two videos to make for school next week and my parents are coming into town today so I won't really be on here that much. Bignole 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fountain tree of life.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Help me out here. Someone's deleted this page twice already, and I have the entire page saved but it's getting tedious. Wiki-newbie 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent a note to the admin who deleted the page. He/she said it was because the film is only announced for production in 2007. His/her cite? Effin' IMDb. Wiki-newbie 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just posted my saved article on his/her talk page, and I'd be curious to know if you can tell me who or where to notify an administrator better with film articles. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Since I got kind of tired of working on superhero films (particularly Batman Begins) for a little while, I switched my attention to improving on The Fountain, which was the film article that originally got me hooked editing similar articles on Wikipedia. I've expanded the article in the past week or so, and I'd like some objective feedback on it, being the only major editor. Do you mind taking a look? -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. (I know you said you're going tired of comics film articles, so I won't mind if you choose not to work on what I'm about to mention.) I recently submitted an article for deletion. It was basically a cruftified attempt at an article about the the Spider-Man series of films. However, while the consensus at the page was to delete, there was also a strong sentimentthat a proper article of the film series would be nice. I agree. but am not sure as to how I'd go about such an endeavor, especially with the first two films' articles in such an apparent state of disrepair. Any thoughts or suggestions as to how I should making Spider-Man film series? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please feel to look it over and bring up any possible concerns. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If images of a leaked trailer, of which Sony has been trying to stop the spread, has been posted on the talk page of Spider-Man 3 via Photobucket or Youtube, do I have a right to remove the image links? -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. I'll take a more discrete path in the future. Thanks for the advice. If Ace conducted himself in the same manner as you and others, there wouldn't be a problem. Reynoldsrapture 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I blew up the picture around the 3 and there wasn't a box outline around it. It blended into the page fine, especially where the colors changed. I'm not sure what you guys are looking at. Bignole 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no difference between the superherohype site and a googlenews feed - except of course that the Google page doesn't have adverts down the right hand side. Mark83 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Took me a while to think of a response, but I'll leave it at thanks. Batman Begins is a GA now, so I think the article can rest easy for a while. Certainly you're doing a good job on The Fountain and I'll try to get ROTK to FA, as well as sort out E.T.. Another thing, I reckon Transformers is in a good shape but do you have any suggestions? I mean, a picture is worth a 1000 words right or am I wrong? Wiki-newbie 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Lenticular poster wasn't "user created". That was something the studio release, though you may mean that the image on Wiki was user created, because you had to have quicktime pro to actually download the lenticular image. I don't think that I said the lenticular better illustrates the article, and if I did then I didn't mean to; what I meant was that it doesn't do it any less than the new image. The film is mostly about his personal battle, his changing from light to dark. I just don't feel it's necessary to constantly change the lead poster just because a new one has come out, not until there is an actual "official" poster. In my opinion, it is going to open the door to other editors that want to change the lead poster to something "they" like better, just like Dam. I don't see any actual "contribution" of the new poster that isn't reflected by the current one, other than the time in which they were released. If Sony releases a new poster Saturday, are we supposed to change it to that one? The level of thinking by Dam is that we have to change it each time a new one comes out. I disagree with that line of thinking, it makes no sense, especially when you are uploading images that aren't really making any change in contribution, but are just new "eyecandy" for the reader. Bignole 06:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting his name, I appreciate that. I already reported him for sock puppetry. He seems to be Spiderman goofs who was making word for word the exact same edits. Bignole 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, right now, your watchlist must read like a comedy dialogue. there are threee of that guy's categories on CfD here. Please go vote on all. ThuranX 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay fine I give up. But there are 1,000s of movie atricles that have a section titled goofs. For examples, Independence Day (film), Jurassic Park (film), Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film), and there are countless more. I thought it was the standard to have them on wikipedia because almost every page had them, but I guess I was wrong and that those articles arent supposed to have them either. Forgive me for trying to contribute. Spiderman goofs 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the categories created, the spelling and capitalization errors, I'm pretty sure that this is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Batman Fan. CovenantD 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a matter of public record that Hyperion was at one time optioned and Aronofsky slated to direct it. I'm therefore not the only one who finds the appearance of a tree/spaceship in The Fountain smacks faintly of plagiarism (unless of course, Hyperion was assest stripped). I agree that more evidence needs to be provided. I will endeavor to find some. Famousdog 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I am so so sorry for the blunder I made on that article. I was trying to use that format for another article and I guess, I accidentally saved it on the Interstellar article. So sorry. -- Hariharan91 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, some of it read as if it was OR, because a lot of that detail wasn't actually in the film. Each paragraph citation would be better, because when I looked at it, the citation for the Batmobile appeared to be going to the quote at the end, and not to the entire section. I haven't gone to the source to see where it comes from (i'm at school right now), but I don't like using one source for that information. I understand wording it in an "in-universe" perspective, because the plot doesn't detail it, but it probably isn't necessary, and can cause confusion (like I had) when reading, as someone reading may think that all of that information was given in the film, when I know they didn't describe the two sitting positions in the film, or that the jet engine did anything more than provide enough force to make a jump, not actually allow the vehicle to fly short distances. Bignole 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, after I blanked the page, I realized that wasn't smart. What I was attemping to do was remove old comments under my old username. I'll just change the signature instead. Sorry for the confusion. Veracious Rey 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't not tell Legs he could self promote on article pages. What I told him was that if he wished to allow others to view his images than he needed to leave a message on his USER page, and anyone that visited could see that and ask him for the images. Obviously I didn't illustrate this to him clearly, because he's been on article talk pages announcing that he has images if people want them. I apologize for the disruption this has caused on the talk pages. Bignole 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You can go ahead and revert it, I just found the poster on one of the sites where I get many upcoming posters. Let me know if it was actually an official teaser poster or simply made using PhotoShop. Looking at it now, it is probably very unlikely that there would be a movie poster released a year before the film is released. Keep up the good work with upcoming films. -- Nehrams2020 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
this is an annoying request. I cited the company. anyone could look it up at their official site if they don't believe me. I've never done citations. if you want to do it you are welcome.
mask, swords, helmet
Ephialtes
Leonidas
--
DannyBoy7783
20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question for you. Could you look at Superman: The Man of Steel (2009 film)? I don't know how much you are keeping up with it, but it's my opinion that the page currently violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy. Admins had to originally protect the "Untitled Superman Returns Sequel" page from being recreated, and that page carried the exact same information. At the moment, even the title of the film is subject to change because it wasn't "this is the title", it was "this is what we'd like to call it". It's only in discussion phase, they don't even have a script started. Even ComingSoon.net lists the film as "Untitled Superman Sequel", and I really don't think there is enough information to support it's own page; especially when they won't even start filming till well into 2007, and the movie isn't even scheduled for a release till 2009. That seems pretty crystal ballish to me, because anything can happen between now and then. Bignole 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm stumped for this piece of Jurassic Park information. Video or Book? Wiki-newbie 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the sources. Check this page www.mtv.com/ontv/movieawards/ma06 for the MTV awards. Hopefully that will drop you off at the 2006 awards...I can't view it here at work. Bignole 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I got the sources for the released date of the two version of the DVD, and the special edition that containted the comic book. The rest of that stuff (the last part) seems a bit like Original Research, at least the way it reads. Like someone that maybe couldn't find a copy of what they wanted and is doing a lot of assuming. Bignole 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You may want to voice your opinion over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Bignole 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I commented [3]. It has been 3 times deleted and has returned with a different title. Afd might be the way to go.-- Dakota 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
From
MoS:L: "When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s
. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]]
— and easier to type." –
flamurai (
t)
12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This Casino Royale page is now up to 51kb. I just removed the "gadgets" section (which was 3 kb by itself) on the grounds of lack of Notablity. I'm pretty sure there are several other sections that lack notability as well, and many more that could be dramatically trimmed. What do you think? Bignole 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ours has mainly been over the plot. First I tagged it for being too long (he disagreed). Then when I removed three things, two of which were "he's next seen" and one was "Casino Royale's major villain" and he wanted to label the plot "in universe". It's all over Talk Page. Bignole
I updated the Schindler's List talk page with an explanation of the list/prank thing, could you please give your thoughts on why it was reverted? If you didn't believe list is German for cunning, I've clarified I'm not making it up, but if you thought something else please let me know so I can tweak my comment. Cantras 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Feh. It happens. I've fixed the dab page so it's at least up to snuff. You could always request expansion, but honestly, I wouldn't bother. Like Kid Flash, Mastermind (comics) and several others, it was probably created by someone who didn't have the time, energy, resources to make something like Robin or Speedy. My advice to you is either leave it—Not a bad article, really, especially for a stub—or try to expand the Ant-Man page a bit while merging that content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The trailer DOES exist, and showing a pic that matches the description ISN'T invalid. I dislike heavy-handed editing. I defy you to prove it's irrelevent. Case in point: NOTHING in the Halo 3 ESPN ad occurs in the game, which is months from release. No one' removed pics from it. Why? IT'S AN ACTUAL AD. The Transformers trailer is an actual ad, and therefore relevent. JAF1970 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have re-reviewed The Fountain.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like we have it again. This user keeps removing the deletion tag. Bignole
The word 'snitch' somehow feels appropriate at the moment. Believe me, I in no feel victimised, and am not seeking to be a nuisance. However, I do think the sequel deserves an article of its own. And as the imdb page reveals, this is the current title. At the moment Wikipedia is not up-to-date, all-be-it on a relatively unimportant article. Possecomitatus 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no answer on the Bond front. It was a counter-argument used to defend against the "Superman hasn't even got a script" argument
I could do all that, but to be honest I'm bored now, having already wasted far to much time on this. If Bignole had messaged me and explained, in polite, reasonable tones then I would have quite happily bowed to his presumably greater wisdom. But the frankly vaguely snotty tone of the message ticked me off a little. You both believe the article to be in violation of the thing. Fine. I think you're wrong, but there we go. Perhaps a reference to the working title on the Superman Returns page would be more appropriate. And incidentally IMDB is the most reliable movie web site. Certainly more up-to-date than Wikipedia. Probably because of stuff like this.
Lol fair enough. Although as a wannabe professional in the film business, I've found it invaluable and insanely accurate most of the time. Actually I quite like the idea of Aunt May is carnage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possecomitatus ( talk • contribs) 18:20, December 7, 2006
I wasn't sure if we were still looking for one. I don't think we really do, because a City is a City, and because there isn't that much going for that section to really need an image I would assume. Bignole 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
take a look at what I've done if you're still up? Also, LEX LETHAL is upset that after talking to you, I change things, so I think, and hope, he'll give it a try at working with us. We'll see what he does. ThuranX 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Talk: Smallville (Season 1)#External links for me, you always have good insight into things and I feel as though I'm being ganged up on over there. I'd appreciate any opinion you have about that. Bignole 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you get a chance, it seems Peregrine is not blanking and redirecting the Season 1 page to his "list of Episode" page. Bignole 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Erik for your prompt response. Right after I msg'd you, I found that the problem was fixed, so I removed the msg not to bug you for no use. The Fair use link however still comes handy for the future. Thanks & Regards-- Goarany 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You commented that I didn't use references for a recent edit. Not sure what you're referring to - My text only referred to a specific book, which I sited completely with author and title. There were some other wonky facts around my edit, on which I repaired some terrible English - but they aren't my facts and you can strip them out if you wish. Rossgk 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened with this guy (Soupy)? Seems like it came out of the blue, did you correct his vandalism somewhere else? Congratulations on the "Satisfied Customer" though, you still have to get one to actually create a name against you..lol. Bignole 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago, you voted against the nomination of Batman Begins as a Featured Article. The article has come a long way since, and I was wondering if you could take the time to share any suggestions you might have, either on my user talk page or the film article's own talk page. I do not believe that the article is yet ready for another FA nomination as I have improvements in mind. I hope that you will be able to share any insights you might have to help improve the article. -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering what you were going to do about that. I'll get rid of it and just point him to my talk page when he has questions (unless you are willing to answer any rumormill questions he may have). Bignole 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the article is really your baby, but I was wondering if it'd be fine to start trimming the article's production and vision sections for a full chronological article given the approaching release. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-newbie ( talk • contribs) 15:26, December 11, 2006
Um, ok mate. I'd rather stick to my Transformers and Bionicles. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd basically consider the article done. Until then, copyedits, as well as a Response and DVD section. Wiki-newbie 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is the possibility of a Soundtrack article. Still, post me some of those excellent Miller information and I'll dig up the suitable stuff. Wiki-newbie 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Do you find pages like Hothead (Smallville episode) objectionable? - Peregrinefisher 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for funking up the spidey stuff. Guess I have lots to learn there. Please forgive my shitty comments. Boggydark 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Took care of it just before I read your message. Also took care of the "ballbusting" again. I directed Harley to the archived discussion we had and explained it all. I also told the Anon about ballbusting. Have you read those articles, ballbusting and it's affiliates? They are rather crude. Bignole 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! At the moment, I was just planning to add in informaiton from this one article I was reading. I may be able to add in more from the other references later, though. Best, Johntex\ talk 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a link to some movie review pages that were biblical in nature like The Nativity Story. The link was to a page on GraceCentered.com, which is a Christian website that has news and movie reviews in addition to other things. The authors write for newspapers around the country, have been published by top publishing companies and many hold Ph.D's in Theology and New/Old Testament. Their opinions, when it comes to movies about biblical text are very valuable in terms of biblical and historical accuracy. I don't understand why you would remove a review by a Bible scholar from a website that is on the same level as Christianity Today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
nonsense? I here this stuff all the time, on tv too. Boggydark 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
SHEEEEEEEEEYYAAAAAAAA!!! had to get that out. Boggydark 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
ComingSoon hasn't changed the spelling of the title, and they recently released two photos from the film. I'm beginning to distrust this foreign site's poster. Bignole 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't be a hypocrite! Do not delete a passage without proper discussion.
The passage stays as stands until discussion takes place:
"The end represents a catharsis much different or contrasting to the end presented in Steven Soderbergh's 2002 film adaptation Solaris (film), i.e. without the idea of rebirth for both persons, Hugh Jackman's character mourns the death of his better half. Thus, the conclusion in the finale of The Fountain is not represenative of a the alchemical wedding of Jung; instead, The Fountain is a film about Freudian grief and loss where the "mother" is buried. The mother symbolized by the World Tree is symboliccaly buried in the unconscious mind, so that the father of the conscious mind may live. Thus, it could be argued that the film represents the director's rejection of Kabbalah or Jung's Alchemy, i.e. a man unwilling to embrace his mother at the expense of his father. The death of the woman symbolizes that this connection has been severed and that only memory remains." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.165.71 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, December 14, 2006
I think we should leave it at this for right now since there has not been an official released name yet. Once the title is announced (the film might also be canceled if it doesn't get the cast it wants), then we could move it to the correct one. -- Nehrams2020 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Totally Awesome | |
A "Did You Know" Award for a mention in the "Did You Know" section in SlashFilm. That's totally awesome. Bignole 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
HHMMMMM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr Bob ( talk • contribs) 14:27, December 15, 2006
Considering I've been remolding 300 and The Dark Knight, do you think we should do the same for Spider-Man 3? The Villains section only exists at a time when nothing about the story was confirmed. I'd like to merge it with Production. Do respond quickly, because I need to go to bed soon, but I'll probably perform it tomorrow. Wiki-newbie 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll be keeping it cool for Spider-Man 3, and I'll be trying to apply it to ROTK, as the Post-Production stuff isn't very linear. But do note, I did it very early on for Transformers, but I'm not going to apply it to the 'Transformers on screen' section as there's no other way I can approach it. Anyway, have a nice Christmas. Wiki-newbie 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I've said before that I feel the likes of Sandman, Venom and Goblin correspond more to screenwriting. Wiki-newbie 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, I had to step out to get some last minute christmas gifts, and stuff. I came back to all this. If you go back through the history, and read through, it's quite funny from an outsiders point of view (obviously not to you guys since it was happening to you, I'd be rather frustrated if it happened to me). Once it get's all square I'll start commenting on the issues that you guys have brought up. Bignole 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't planning on reverting it back if someone else disagreed (if ACS had I might have gone for pushing the 3RR), but thanks for the heads up anyway. Hbdragon88 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't mean to be a butt here, and I know you're kidding me some, but explain to me how my thoughts are belated? I mean, the importance level wasn't changed yet. This is so frustrating. Everytime I commment on this article, you guys nip at my heals (some biting harder than others). It's incredibly discouraging to those of us who really want to help. Again, help me understand why my post was not up to standards? Veracious Rey 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It was spam not contributing anything to the article there is no real point in keeping it, I'm not going to say that I should had stayed away from it but it was stupid seeing something like that on a talk page, however my point is valid if you keep them there they will turn it into a forum, don't you think it's true?-However I admit my mistake and won't reply to anyone that does to keep it from becoming a full argument.- Dark Dragon Flame 19 December 2006
I think what I'll do is read through, and as I'm reading, drop a line here with something new that I see. This way I won't forget something if I wait till I've read through it all. So, the first thing that seemed out of place was in the production (I skipped the plot because I haven't seen the film). It was the ending of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second.
The start date for production was set to begin in summer 2002.[6]
- Production was set for late October 2002 in Queensland and Sydney, Australia.
It just seemed to jump from talking about setting a date for production of "The Last Man" to setting a date for "The Fountain". There isn't an explaination (don't know if you don't need one, or can't find one) as to why the title changed and why the production was supposed to start in the summer of 2002, but was pushed to October. Am I missing something?
Bignole
18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article looks real good, the rest of it flows well. Could "Graphic Novel" be part of "Marketing"?
Bignole
19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I went searching for yours, but they kept directing me to Orphans and Brother's keeper. It wasn't a Dracula film. I have Dracula films, original and new ones. Bignole 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I've decided to give importance and quality scale ratings the Future class for those films yet to be released. Wiki-newbie 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That the article is Future isn't in question. My question is why remove the mid level importance rating? Even if you do, the article is still rated future. Why not leave the mid level rating to serve as an impetus for change? Wiki-newbie needs to clarify his stance. Veracious Rey 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I did snap at him a bit; I've already replied to his talk. Anyways... the 'ace' comment... man, that just hurts... Hope finals went well. ThuranX 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you read Talk:Aliens (film)#New plot. There was an edit war, one which I am being accussed of breaking the 3RR and being reported, over the plot of this film and I'd like your opinion about the new plot that I am proposing. You can see the plot as it stands, and if you go back in the history you can see the other editor's plot. It is his, Shadow something, opinion that if you change someone's wording, even if it isn't changed to the original text, but simply rewritten altogether, it's still considered reverting. Anyway, I'll be going home tomorrow, so if I'm blocked then it will be at a time when I won't be near a computer; I'd just like your opinion on the comparison of plots because I know you always keep an unbiased eye. Bignole 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the info. I saw what you did for BP, that's pretty cool, I wasn't aware of all that, and I'm sure it's hard enough to find things all the way back in 1993. Good job. Well, I'm off to take my 10 hour trip back home. Bignole 11:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then, if his statements continue to rehash his same old invalid arguments, can we remove his comments as soon as he posts them? We've given him multiple opportunities to understand how citations work. I think now he's just being beligerant and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'm beginning to see what you guys have to deal with constantly. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good advice. If I don't talk to you in a couple of days, have a Merry Christmas. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but ace can be hurting in his comments. Let me ask you one thing. If the comment is wiki bad on wiki, then should it be so? Boggydark 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've submitted the problems on the talk page for review. See the SM3 talk page, those two mental midgets got throwh into a sac and fought last night; I've had it, let the Admins sort out their idiocies. ThuranX 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be ok for me to dump some citations for you from when I created the article onto your sub-page? Hope you enjoyed Christmas. Wiki-newbie 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, a future film to gather cites for? There's The Hobbit, but I'd rather stay clear until New Line prove they were wrong to dismiss Jackson. You wouldn't mind digging starting a past films page though? I mean, we're both fans of Schindler's List. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of what you did for Black Panther so I was curious because for Schindler's List because it was being developed around the same period. Still, I just need to dig some Spielberg book about the film. Still, a past films page would be a good recommendation because there are all sorts of interesting stuff to find: Batman Begins, Superman Returns or Cancelled Superman films could benefit with cites for the development hell, and I'd throw in Peter Jackson's aborted 1996 version of King Kong too. Still, how far does this archive of yours go? It'd be nice if it could go back to the 1950s for films like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Still, for my general Internet reach, do you know of any site with an easy to look through archives other than IGN? Wiki-newbie 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So do I go to Variety, or go to Google and type site:Variety <keywords>? So this goes up to 1977 ai? That's cool. Regarding Batman Begins books, I'd recommend Scott Beatty's Dorling Kindersley guide as it's got a map of Gotham useful for the design section. The Art of Batman Begins is cool too with images of a plasticine Tumbler. I may try to find these at a library, though I'm unlikely to upload those images: I've only mastered copy and pasting the Internet. Wiki-newbie 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, today I read your post about the two movies and I think that I can help you with one of them (the 1st one). It is the Power of One. The black man (played by Morgan Freeman) is a prisoner in a internment camp in South Afrika during WWII (I dont remember if the Blacks were criminals or simply arrested because they were members of German-allied tribes)). He trains PK boxing. PK and the German Doctor (the only white prisoner) misled the Camp commander (a Germanphile) to let the Black prisoners to sing a song under guise of praising the white goverment (or something like that). In reality they teach them a song about freedom. A white guard who hates Blacks forces the black trainer to clean his boot with his tongue (of a piece of shit). As the prisoners are singing in their native tongues (PK is the only white able to understand) the guard catches the trainer alone and beats him. The trainer proudly translates the song "we are free" (something like that) and the guard mad as hell beats him severly. The trainer dies in the arms of PK as a free man. Great movie but it is diffrent from the book. Flamarande 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph about Afghanistan is this:
Favreau adds that the origin will be updated, with Afghanistan replacing 'Nam, that Iron Man will don his classic red-and-gold armour (the original clunky grey armour will feature briefly), and the villain will be The Mandarin, a Chinese megalomaniac who wields ten souped-up alien rings, although they might not make the cut.
Anyway, it came straight from Favreau, so no speculative worries. If you're wondering, Favreau details about "the assumption that that same technology is what's avaliable to villains", on adapting The Mandarin. Btw, I cleaned up the plots of King Kong and Superman Returns. I've never heard of Voltron either. Wiki-newbie 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to warn him but I saw that you had already given him his final warning 3 minutes before he did it again. Oh, and how can Wiki-nembie not know Voltron??? lol. Bignole 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If those scenes occur in the film, how are they "original research"? If something's in the film, that's a fact about the film. Should we delete the plot as "original research"? Some guy 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
See my recent comments on the Spider-man 3 talk page. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I was going to have to do it. I love his little display of naiveté there "What, my poor little link is spam"?
Daniel Case
19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, let's get real here. I'm sincerely sorry I did something I wasn't supposed to, but please bear in mind that it was with good intentions. I offered my apologies for Eric having to revert all the changes I did, and also I explained that it was really not clear to me that these kinds of links are not appreciated. I'm not a spammer, just an avid blogger. No hard feelings regarding the removal of my links, but you don't have to make fun of me either.
The point I'm trying to make it that in the process of entering my links, there was no clear notice telling me what is appropriate and what not. A simple link to your policy whould have stopped me adding those links in the first place. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, November 1, 2006
Appreciate the time and effort you guys put into this, Wikipedia rulez ;-) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.12.240 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, November 1, 2006
Hmm, I hadn't rechecked the blog to see, but that's interesting. I say, if the official blog has removed that bit of information then we should remove it as well under the grounds that "the official blog that held the source, confirming Bruce's role as a Matre'd, has been removed and as such is no longer a verifiable cite for this information". Or, something along those lines, at least that is my opinion on the subject. But, that's a good catch by you either way. Bignole 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Got your message. Nice of you to take the time to read the article. Bignole said he'd get back to me in a few days also, so I'll tap into both your expertise and work it out. I'll let you know what happens. It's nice to see fellow Wikipedians lending a hand. Lately, I was beginning to feel a little beat up by some of the other editors (Ace Class Shadow). Reynoldsrapture 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that we may need to file for a semi-protection of the page to stop needless rumor edits by Anons. I think if this continues we will have to because many "regular" editors will be forced to come dangerously close to their 3 reverts trying to correct these edits. Bignole 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I just filed the protection request. Bignole
Yeah, it seems as though if someone finds the image on the internet, even though others have taken it down at the request from Sony, that it's ok to use the ones that some sites didn't take down. Bignole 16:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert, because it's part of a major story arc; I just reworded. In my opinion, there can never been too many citations. It's always better to make sure you say where you got, even if you've already said so earlier in the page, than to come across someone that's like "hey there's no cite for this, you're plagarizing" or some BS like that. Bignole 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to go ahead with that you can, you wouldn't be violating the 3RR. 3RR doesn't apply to an actual change in the article that hasn't been reverted. Unless someone decides they don't like it and reverts it back, your initial change doesn't constitute a "revert". Bignole 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The guy finally admitted that he got the image from the ComicCon footage, and when he gave me a link to his source ironically it had been removed from the page (according to him, I can't view any "entertainment" while at work). I told him we can't use it because the footage was "private" showing, not public, and Sony has requested that all Venom images be removed. Hopefully he won't put it back up there, but you never know. Thanks for taking a look for me, since I'm kind of inhibited at work now that they blocked all images on Wikipedia. Bignole 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, did you consider my remarks uncivil also, in which I asked the person with the "Get out" comment to make constructive contributions and respect the right of others to contribute as well? I ask because in reverting, you removed my comment as well - and also an innocent sentence from December about how many episodes were in certain seasons of MMC, which the IP person removed tonight after denying this morning that he or she removed the whole comment last night (but history shows otherwise.) Please look over the history again. If necessary I can live with my second request for civility being gone, but at the very least that sentence from December should be there, accurate or not (especially since we don't know for sure, either way). Also, a much more severe bit of incivility is the subject header at the bottom of the page. Regards. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I was aware that you were attempting to reformat the article but I was not aware that these sections were a work in progress. I did not even know that you specifically added them. But I'd be happy to give you some suggestions. First, anything with the casting I would discuss in the cast section. Perhaps either placing the text after the description of the character or creating a few paragraphs at the bottom of the section. I generally dislike sectioning of the production section, however it's not always a bad thing. If you take a look at the articles I've brought to featured status on the Star Wars prequel films then you can see how I prefer to format film articles. I generally put the production section on top, above the synopsis, because otherwise the infobox will push the photos inside the synopsis section down and sometimes can create an odd "text mush". You will notice if you do so right now (or take a look at the records) that placing the production section make a "prettier picture" inside the synopsis section. :) The Filmaker 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Someone decided to tag that as "getting back" at me and I forgot that rule. I'll put a hangon tag like I should. Sorry again and thanks for the heads up. - WarthogDemon 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Erikster. User:Bignole informed me that another editor, User:Piecraft, created his own template, Template: Horrormovie Icons. The problem is that this template is almost an exact copy of Bignole's Template: Horror Icons, which was created first as you'll probably remember from my documented "Horror Icons War" on my "Discussion page" [ [1]]. I believe that creating the template is User:Piecraft's way of circumventing the protection on Template: Horror Icons that resulted after the edit wars on the template so that he can add his own "horror icons" to the list.
In addition, User:Bignole informed me that User:Piecraft replaced Template: Horror Icons with his Template: Horrormovie Icons on most of the horror-related pages such as Michael Myers (Halloween). Take a look at the history [ [2]]. By the way, notice how User:The Scourge deleted Bignole's Horror Icon's template and then Piecraft placed his/hers on the page? Conspiracy? Sock Puppets?
Anyways, can you or another editor please delete Piecraft's template? It's just a sneaky way to get around protections in order to add things of your own.
( FF7SquallStrife7 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC))
I added that reference because before it wasn't clear what was actually going to be used. It seemed good to have a link to Ledger saying they literally handed him The Killing Joke and nothing else. Bignole
Could you please puit back my comment on the YouTube footage on Spider-Man 3's talk page? I thought that would link to images we could post here on Wikipedia. After all, everybody likes spoilers. Happy contributing! 70.58.211.220
I just glanced at it, but it's looking good. I put a plot tag in there, cause that thing was a novel. Also, I think the opening paragraph could be rewritten, with some things better placed on the page. When I have a better chance to actually read through it (it's kind of late right now, so I'm not all here) I'll see what/if anything needs to be done. It's funny you should be doing this because I was just going to start working on the first two Spider-Man films. Bignole 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On two points, I first do not consider myself arguing interpretations, though maybe the anonymous user is, but instead correcting the anonymous editor on the events that transpired in the film, upon which he is basing his interpretations. While I mentioned interpretations in my original reply, I merely did so in an attempt to seem less arrogant or condescending as I went on to correct the details of the scene he was misinformed of. Secondly, I am lost as to what edit of mine you are referring to with your request not to edit another user's profane comment. If you could please clarify, thanks in advance of your reply. -- Viewdrix 15:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Dab edit. I happened to be looking at your page and was like "wow, Hugh Jackman fan"..lol. So I went to it, knowing it was probably in good shape anyway if you were on it, and it was. I just put a "citation" tag where I thought one should be. I'm not even watching the page. I have a test, and two videos to make for school next week and my parents are coming into town today so I won't really be on here that much. Bignole 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fountain tree of life.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Help me out here. Someone's deleted this page twice already, and I have the entire page saved but it's getting tedious. Wiki-newbie 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I sent a note to the admin who deleted the page. He/she said it was because the film is only announced for production in 2007. His/her cite? Effin' IMDb. Wiki-newbie 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just posted my saved article on his/her talk page, and I'd be curious to know if you can tell me who or where to notify an administrator better with film articles. Wiki-newbie 19:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Since I got kind of tired of working on superhero films (particularly Batman Begins) for a little while, I switched my attention to improving on The Fountain, which was the film article that originally got me hooked editing similar articles on Wikipedia. I've expanded the article in the past week or so, and I'd like some objective feedback on it, being the only major editor. Do you mind taking a look? -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. (I know you said you're going tired of comics film articles, so I won't mind if you choose not to work on what I'm about to mention.) I recently submitted an article for deletion. It was basically a cruftified attempt at an article about the the Spider-Man series of films. However, while the consensus at the page was to delete, there was also a strong sentimentthat a proper article of the film series would be nice. I agree. but am not sure as to how I'd go about such an endeavor, especially with the first two films' articles in such an apparent state of disrepair. Any thoughts or suggestions as to how I should making Spider-Man film series? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please feel to look it over and bring up any possible concerns. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If images of a leaked trailer, of which Sony has been trying to stop the spread, has been posted on the talk page of Spider-Man 3 via Photobucket or Youtube, do I have a right to remove the image links? -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Point well taken. I'll take a more discrete path in the future. Thanks for the advice. If Ace conducted himself in the same manner as you and others, there wouldn't be a problem. Reynoldsrapture 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I blew up the picture around the 3 and there wasn't a box outline around it. It blended into the page fine, especially where the colors changed. I'm not sure what you guys are looking at. Bignole 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no difference between the superherohype site and a googlenews feed - except of course that the Google page doesn't have adverts down the right hand side. Mark83 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Took me a while to think of a response, but I'll leave it at thanks. Batman Begins is a GA now, so I think the article can rest easy for a while. Certainly you're doing a good job on The Fountain and I'll try to get ROTK to FA, as well as sort out E.T.. Another thing, I reckon Transformers is in a good shape but do you have any suggestions? I mean, a picture is worth a 1000 words right or am I wrong? Wiki-newbie 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Lenticular poster wasn't "user created". That was something the studio release, though you may mean that the image on Wiki was user created, because you had to have quicktime pro to actually download the lenticular image. I don't think that I said the lenticular better illustrates the article, and if I did then I didn't mean to; what I meant was that it doesn't do it any less than the new image. The film is mostly about his personal battle, his changing from light to dark. I just don't feel it's necessary to constantly change the lead poster just because a new one has come out, not until there is an actual "official" poster. In my opinion, it is going to open the door to other editors that want to change the lead poster to something "they" like better, just like Dam. I don't see any actual "contribution" of the new poster that isn't reflected by the current one, other than the time in which they were released. If Sony releases a new poster Saturday, are we supposed to change it to that one? The level of thinking by Dam is that we have to change it each time a new one comes out. I disagree with that line of thinking, it makes no sense, especially when you are uploading images that aren't really making any change in contribution, but are just new "eyecandy" for the reader. Bignole 06:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting his name, I appreciate that. I already reported him for sock puppetry. He seems to be Spiderman goofs who was making word for word the exact same edits. Bignole 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, right now, your watchlist must read like a comedy dialogue. there are threee of that guy's categories on CfD here. Please go vote on all. ThuranX 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay fine I give up. But there are 1,000s of movie atricles that have a section titled goofs. For examples, Independence Day (film), Jurassic Park (film), Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film), and there are countless more. I thought it was the standard to have them on wikipedia because almost every page had them, but I guess I was wrong and that those articles arent supposed to have them either. Forgive me for trying to contribute. Spiderman goofs 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Based on the categories created, the spelling and capitalization errors, I'm pretty sure that this is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Batman Fan. CovenantD 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a matter of public record that Hyperion was at one time optioned and Aronofsky slated to direct it. I'm therefore not the only one who finds the appearance of a tree/spaceship in The Fountain smacks faintly of plagiarism (unless of course, Hyperion was assest stripped). I agree that more evidence needs to be provided. I will endeavor to find some. Famousdog 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I am so so sorry for the blunder I made on that article. I was trying to use that format for another article and I guess, I accidentally saved it on the Interstellar article. So sorry. -- Hariharan91 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, some of it read as if it was OR, because a lot of that detail wasn't actually in the film. Each paragraph citation would be better, because when I looked at it, the citation for the Batmobile appeared to be going to the quote at the end, and not to the entire section. I haven't gone to the source to see where it comes from (i'm at school right now), but I don't like using one source for that information. I understand wording it in an "in-universe" perspective, because the plot doesn't detail it, but it probably isn't necessary, and can cause confusion (like I had) when reading, as someone reading may think that all of that information was given in the film, when I know they didn't describe the two sitting positions in the film, or that the jet engine did anything more than provide enough force to make a jump, not actually allow the vehicle to fly short distances. Bignole 19:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, after I blanked the page, I realized that wasn't smart. What I was attemping to do was remove old comments under my old username. I'll just change the signature instead. Sorry for the confusion. Veracious Rey 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't not tell Legs he could self promote on article pages. What I told him was that if he wished to allow others to view his images than he needed to leave a message on his USER page, and anyone that visited could see that and ask him for the images. Obviously I didn't illustrate this to him clearly, because he's been on article talk pages announcing that he has images if people want them. I apologize for the disruption this has caused on the talk pages. Bignole 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You can go ahead and revert it, I just found the poster on one of the sites where I get many upcoming posters. Let me know if it was actually an official teaser poster or simply made using PhotoShop. Looking at it now, it is probably very unlikely that there would be a movie poster released a year before the film is released. Keep up the good work with upcoming films. -- Nehrams2020 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
this is an annoying request. I cited the company. anyone could look it up at their official site if they don't believe me. I've never done citations. if you want to do it you are welcome.
mask, swords, helmet
Ephialtes
Leonidas
--
DannyBoy7783
20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question for you. Could you look at Superman: The Man of Steel (2009 film)? I don't know how much you are keeping up with it, but it's my opinion that the page currently violates the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy. Admins had to originally protect the "Untitled Superman Returns Sequel" page from being recreated, and that page carried the exact same information. At the moment, even the title of the film is subject to change because it wasn't "this is the title", it was "this is what we'd like to call it". It's only in discussion phase, they don't even have a script started. Even ComingSoon.net lists the film as "Untitled Superman Sequel", and I really don't think there is enough information to support it's own page; especially when they won't even start filming till well into 2007, and the movie isn't even scheduled for a release till 2009. That seems pretty crystal ballish to me, because anything can happen between now and then. Bignole 21:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm stumped for this piece of Jurassic Park information. Video or Book? Wiki-newbie 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job on the sources. Check this page www.mtv.com/ontv/movieawards/ma06 for the MTV awards. Hopefully that will drop you off at the 2006 awards...I can't view it here at work. Bignole 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I got the sources for the released date of the two version of the DVD, and the special edition that containted the comic book. The rest of that stuff (the last part) seems a bit like Original Research, at least the way it reads. Like someone that maybe couldn't find a copy of what they wanted and is doing a lot of assuming. Bignole 22:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You may want to voice your opinion over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Bignole 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I commented [3]. It has been 3 times deleted and has returned with a different title. Afd might be the way to go.-- Dakota 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
From
MoS:L: "When forming plurals, do so thus: [[language]]s
. This is clearer to read in wiki form than [[language|languages]]
— and easier to type." –
flamurai (
t)
12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This Casino Royale page is now up to 51kb. I just removed the "gadgets" section (which was 3 kb by itself) on the grounds of lack of Notablity. I'm pretty sure there are several other sections that lack notability as well, and many more that could be dramatically trimmed. What do you think? Bignole 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ours has mainly been over the plot. First I tagged it for being too long (he disagreed). Then when I removed three things, two of which were "he's next seen" and one was "Casino Royale's major villain" and he wanted to label the plot "in universe". It's all over Talk Page. Bignole
I updated the Schindler's List talk page with an explanation of the list/prank thing, could you please give your thoughts on why it was reverted? If you didn't believe list is German for cunning, I've clarified I'm not making it up, but if you thought something else please let me know so I can tweak my comment. Cantras 08:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Feh. It happens. I've fixed the dab page so it's at least up to snuff. You could always request expansion, but honestly, I wouldn't bother. Like Kid Flash, Mastermind (comics) and several others, it was probably created by someone who didn't have the time, energy, resources to make something like Robin or Speedy. My advice to you is either leave it—Not a bad article, really, especially for a stub—or try to expand the Ant-Man page a bit while merging that content. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The trailer DOES exist, and showing a pic that matches the description ISN'T invalid. I dislike heavy-handed editing. I defy you to prove it's irrelevent. Case in point: NOTHING in the Halo 3 ESPN ad occurs in the game, which is months from release. No one' removed pics from it. Why? IT'S AN ACTUAL AD. The Transformers trailer is an actual ad, and therefore relevent. JAF1970 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have re-reviewed The Fountain.-- Esprit15d ( talk ¤ contribs) 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems like we have it again. This user keeps removing the deletion tag. Bignole
The word 'snitch' somehow feels appropriate at the moment. Believe me, I in no feel victimised, and am not seeking to be a nuisance. However, I do think the sequel deserves an article of its own. And as the imdb page reveals, this is the current title. At the moment Wikipedia is not up-to-date, all-be-it on a relatively unimportant article. Possecomitatus 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no answer on the Bond front. It was a counter-argument used to defend against the "Superman hasn't even got a script" argument
I could do all that, but to be honest I'm bored now, having already wasted far to much time on this. If Bignole had messaged me and explained, in polite, reasonable tones then I would have quite happily bowed to his presumably greater wisdom. But the frankly vaguely snotty tone of the message ticked me off a little. You both believe the article to be in violation of the thing. Fine. I think you're wrong, but there we go. Perhaps a reference to the working title on the Superman Returns page would be more appropriate. And incidentally IMDB is the most reliable movie web site. Certainly more up-to-date than Wikipedia. Probably because of stuff like this.
Lol fair enough. Although as a wannabe professional in the film business, I've found it invaluable and insanely accurate most of the time. Actually I quite like the idea of Aunt May is carnage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possecomitatus ( talk • contribs) 18:20, December 7, 2006
I wasn't sure if we were still looking for one. I don't think we really do, because a City is a City, and because there isn't that much going for that section to really need an image I would assume. Bignole 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
take a look at what I've done if you're still up? Also, LEX LETHAL is upset that after talking to you, I change things, so I think, and hope, he'll give it a try at working with us. We'll see what he does. ThuranX 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the Talk: Smallville (Season 1)#External links for me, you always have good insight into things and I feel as though I'm being ganged up on over there. I'd appreciate any opinion you have about that. Bignole 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you get a chance, it seems Peregrine is not blanking and redirecting the Season 1 page to his "list of Episode" page. Bignole 19:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Erik for your prompt response. Right after I msg'd you, I found that the problem was fixed, so I removed the msg not to bug you for no use. The Fair use link however still comes handy for the future. Thanks & Regards-- Goarany 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You commented that I didn't use references for a recent edit. Not sure what you're referring to - My text only referred to a specific book, which I sited completely with author and title. There were some other wonky facts around my edit, on which I repaired some terrible English - but they aren't my facts and you can strip them out if you wish. Rossgk 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
What happened with this guy (Soupy)? Seems like it came out of the blue, did you correct his vandalism somewhere else? Congratulations on the "Satisfied Customer" though, you still have to get one to actually create a name against you..lol. Bignole 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some time ago, you voted against the nomination of Batman Begins as a Featured Article. The article has come a long way since, and I was wondering if you could take the time to share any suggestions you might have, either on my user talk page or the film article's own talk page. I do not believe that the article is yet ready for another FA nomination as I have improvements in mind. I hope that you will be able to share any insights you might have to help improve the article. -- Erik ( talk/ contrib) @ 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering what you were going to do about that. I'll get rid of it and just point him to my talk page when he has questions (unless you are willing to answer any rumormill questions he may have). Bignole 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems like the article is really your baby, but I was wondering if it'd be fine to start trimming the article's production and vision sections for a full chronological article given the approaching release. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-newbie ( talk • contribs) 15:26, December 11, 2006
Um, ok mate. I'd rather stick to my Transformers and Bionicles. Wiki-newbie 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd basically consider the article done. Until then, copyedits, as well as a Response and DVD section. Wiki-newbie 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is the possibility of a Soundtrack article. Still, post me some of those excellent Miller information and I'll dig up the suitable stuff. Wiki-newbie 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Do you find pages like Hothead (Smallville episode) objectionable? - Peregrinefisher 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for funking up the spidey stuff. Guess I have lots to learn there. Please forgive my shitty comments. Boggydark 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Took care of it just before I read your message. Also took care of the "ballbusting" again. I directed Harley to the archived discussion we had and explained it all. I also told the Anon about ballbusting. Have you read those articles, ballbusting and it's affiliates? They are rather crude. Bignole 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! At the moment, I was just planning to add in informaiton from this one article I was reading. I may be able to add in more from the other references later, though. Best, Johntex\ talk 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a link to some movie review pages that were biblical in nature like The Nativity Story. The link was to a page on GraceCentered.com, which is a Christian website that has news and movie reviews in addition to other things. The authors write for newspapers around the country, have been published by top publishing companies and many hold Ph.D's in Theology and New/Old Testament. Their opinions, when it comes to movies about biblical text are very valuable in terms of biblical and historical accuracy. I don't understand why you would remove a review by a Bible scholar from a website that is on the same level as Christianity Today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leesw ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
nonsense? I here this stuff all the time, on tv too. Boggydark 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
SHEEEEEEEEEYYAAAAAAAA!!! had to get that out. Boggydark 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
ComingSoon hasn't changed the spelling of the title, and they recently released two photos from the film. I'm beginning to distrust this foreign site's poster. Bignole 13:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't be a hypocrite! Do not delete a passage without proper discussion.
The passage stays as stands until discussion takes place:
"The end represents a catharsis much different or contrasting to the end presented in Steven Soderbergh's 2002 film adaptation Solaris (film), i.e. without the idea of rebirth for both persons, Hugh Jackman's character mourns the death of his better half. Thus, the conclusion in the finale of The Fountain is not represenative of a the alchemical wedding of Jung; instead, The Fountain is a film about Freudian grief and loss where the "mother" is buried. The mother symbolized by the World Tree is symboliccaly buried in the unconscious mind, so that the father of the conscious mind may live. Thus, it could be argued that the film represents the director's rejection of Kabbalah or Jung's Alchemy, i.e. a man unwilling to embrace his mother at the expense of his father. The death of the woman symbolizes that this connection has been severed and that only memory remains." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.165.71 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, December 14, 2006
I think we should leave it at this for right now since there has not been an official released name yet. Once the title is announced (the film might also be canceled if it doesn't get the cast it wants), then we could move it to the correct one. -- Nehrams2020 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Totally Awesome | |
A "Did You Know" Award for a mention in the "Did You Know" section in SlashFilm. That's totally awesome. Bignole 18:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
HHMMMMM!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr Bob ( talk • contribs) 14:27, December 15, 2006
Considering I've been remolding 300 and The Dark Knight, do you think we should do the same for Spider-Man 3? The Villains section only exists at a time when nothing about the story was confirmed. I'd like to merge it with Production. Do respond quickly, because I need to go to bed soon, but I'll probably perform it tomorrow. Wiki-newbie 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll be keeping it cool for Spider-Man 3, and I'll be trying to apply it to ROTK, as the Post-Production stuff isn't very linear. But do note, I did it very early on for Transformers, but I'm not going to apply it to the 'Transformers on screen' section as there's no other way I can approach it. Anyway, have a nice Christmas. Wiki-newbie 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I've said before that I feel the likes of Sandman, Venom and Goblin correspond more to screenwriting. Wiki-newbie 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on, I had to step out to get some last minute christmas gifts, and stuff. I came back to all this. If you go back through the history, and read through, it's quite funny from an outsiders point of view (obviously not to you guys since it was happening to you, I'd be rather frustrated if it happened to me). Once it get's all square I'll start commenting on the issues that you guys have brought up. Bignole 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't planning on reverting it back if someone else disagreed (if ACS had I might have gone for pushing the 3RR), but thanks for the heads up anyway. Hbdragon88 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't mean to be a butt here, and I know you're kidding me some, but explain to me how my thoughts are belated? I mean, the importance level wasn't changed yet. This is so frustrating. Everytime I commment on this article, you guys nip at my heals (some biting harder than others). It's incredibly discouraging to those of us who really want to help. Again, help me understand why my post was not up to standards? Veracious Rey 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It was spam not contributing anything to the article there is no real point in keeping it, I'm not going to say that I should had stayed away from it but it was stupid seeing something like that on a talk page, however my point is valid if you keep them there they will turn it into a forum, don't you think it's true?-However I admit my mistake and won't reply to anyone that does to keep it from becoming a full argument.- Dark Dragon Flame 19 December 2006
I think what I'll do is read through, and as I'm reading, drop a line here with something new that I see. This way I won't forget something if I wait till I've read through it all. So, the first thing that seemed out of place was in the production (I skipped the plot because I haven't seen the film). It was the ending of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second.
The start date for production was set to begin in summer 2002.[6]
- Production was set for late October 2002 in Queensland and Sydney, Australia.
It just seemed to jump from talking about setting a date for production of "The Last Man" to setting a date for "The Fountain". There isn't an explaination (don't know if you don't need one, or can't find one) as to why the title changed and why the production was supposed to start in the summer of 2002, but was pushed to October. Am I missing something?
Bignole
18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The article looks real good, the rest of it flows well. Could "Graphic Novel" be part of "Marketing"?
Bignole
19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I went searching for yours, but they kept directing me to Orphans and Brother's keeper. It wasn't a Dracula film. I have Dracula films, original and new ones. Bignole 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, I've decided to give importance and quality scale ratings the Future class for those films yet to be released. Wiki-newbie 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That the article is Future isn't in question. My question is why remove the mid level importance rating? Even if you do, the article is still rated future. Why not leave the mid level rating to serve as an impetus for change? Wiki-newbie needs to clarify his stance. Veracious Rey 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I did snap at him a bit; I've already replied to his talk. Anyways... the 'ace' comment... man, that just hurts... Hope finals went well. ThuranX 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you read Talk:Aliens (film)#New plot. There was an edit war, one which I am being accussed of breaking the 3RR and being reported, over the plot of this film and I'd like your opinion about the new plot that I am proposing. You can see the plot as it stands, and if you go back in the history you can see the other editor's plot. It is his, Shadow something, opinion that if you change someone's wording, even if it isn't changed to the original text, but simply rewritten altogether, it's still considered reverting. Anyway, I'll be going home tomorrow, so if I'm blocked then it will be at a time when I won't be near a computer; I'd just like your opinion on the comparison of plots because I know you always keep an unbiased eye. Bignole 15:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the info. I saw what you did for BP, that's pretty cool, I wasn't aware of all that, and I'm sure it's hard enough to find things all the way back in 1993. Good job. Well, I'm off to take my 10 hour trip back home. Bignole 11:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then, if his statements continue to rehash his same old invalid arguments, can we remove his comments as soon as he posts them? We've given him multiple opportunities to understand how citations work. I think now he's just being beligerant and disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'm beginning to see what you guys have to deal with constantly. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Good advice. If I don't talk to you in a couple of days, have a Merry Christmas. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 23:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, but ace can be hurting in his comments. Let me ask you one thing. If the comment is wiki bad on wiki, then should it be so? Boggydark 06:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've submitted the problems on the talk page for review. See the SM3 talk page, those two mental midgets got throwh into a sac and fought last night; I've had it, let the Admins sort out their idiocies. ThuranX 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be ok for me to dump some citations for you from when I created the article onto your sub-page? Hope you enjoyed Christmas. Wiki-newbie 20:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, a future film to gather cites for? There's The Hobbit, but I'd rather stay clear until New Line prove they were wrong to dismiss Jackson. You wouldn't mind digging starting a past films page though? I mean, we're both fans of Schindler's List. Wiki-newbie 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm aware of what you did for Black Panther so I was curious because for Schindler's List because it was being developed around the same period. Still, I just need to dig some Spielberg book about the film. Still, a past films page would be a good recommendation because there are all sorts of interesting stuff to find: Batman Begins, Superman Returns or Cancelled Superman films could benefit with cites for the development hell, and I'd throw in Peter Jackson's aborted 1996 version of King Kong too. Still, how far does this archive of yours go? It'd be nice if it could go back to the 1950s for films like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Still, for my general Internet reach, do you know of any site with an easy to look through archives other than IGN? Wiki-newbie 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
So do I go to Variety, or go to Google and type site:Variety <keywords>? So this goes up to 1977 ai? That's cool. Regarding Batman Begins books, I'd recommend Scott Beatty's Dorling Kindersley guide as it's got a map of Gotham useful for the design section. The Art of Batman Begins is cool too with images of a plasticine Tumbler. I may try to find these at a library, though I'm unlikely to upload those images: I've only mastered copy and pasting the Internet. Wiki-newbie 15:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, today I read your post about the two movies and I think that I can help you with one of them (the 1st one). It is the Power of One. The black man (played by Morgan Freeman) is a prisoner in a internment camp in South Afrika during WWII (I dont remember if the Blacks were criminals or simply arrested because they were members of German-allied tribes)). He trains PK boxing. PK and the German Doctor (the only white prisoner) misled the Camp commander (a Germanphile) to let the Black prisoners to sing a song under guise of praising the white goverment (or something like that). In reality they teach them a song about freedom. A white guard who hates Blacks forces the black trainer to clean his boot with his tongue (of a piece of shit). As the prisoners are singing in their native tongues (PK is the only white able to understand) the guard catches the trainer alone and beats him. The trainer proudly translates the song "we are free" (something like that) and the guard mad as hell beats him severly. The trainer dies in the arms of PK as a free man. Great movie but it is diffrent from the book. Flamarande 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph about Afghanistan is this:
Favreau adds that the origin will be updated, with Afghanistan replacing 'Nam, that Iron Man will don his classic red-and-gold armour (the original clunky grey armour will feature briefly), and the villain will be The Mandarin, a Chinese megalomaniac who wields ten souped-up alien rings, although they might not make the cut.
Anyway, it came straight from Favreau, so no speculative worries. If you're wondering, Favreau details about "the assumption that that same technology is what's avaliable to villains", on adapting The Mandarin. Btw, I cleaned up the plots of King Kong and Superman Returns. I've never heard of Voltron either. Wiki-newbie 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to warn him but I saw that you had already given him his final warning 3 minutes before he did it again. Oh, and how can Wiki-nembie not know Voltron??? lol. Bignole 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If those scenes occur in the film, how are they "original research"? If something's in the film, that's a fact about the film. Should we delete the plot as "original research"? Some guy 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
See my recent comments on the Spider-man 3 talk page. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 08:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)