# Talk:Halloween II (2009 film)

For Imdb will be H2: Halloween 2. For esample X2 is X2 in wiki and in imdb. But Mission: Impossible II is Mission: Impossible II and not M:i-2. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. The official trailer, the teaser poster, and the people associated are saying "H2". That's what they are leaving it as. The only people saying "H2: Halloween 2" are news people, because they have to clarify what they are talking about. So they really aren't saying "H2: Halloween 2", but actually "H2, Halloween 2". The official website also just says "H2".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but should it really be stated as "original cast members"?  I know the actual nature of the wording, but, in my opinion, "original" means from the first series of films.  Just my opinion and a somewhat useless question.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just remove I just removed the "original" part. Says the same thing.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know if it was in there for any specific reason.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No. I adjusted my statement, because I didn't meant to imply for you to just do it. I did it before I responded to your comment.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 17:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Sherri Moon gonna be in this, or is she sitting this one out? This'll be the first RZ movie to not have her in it, if that's the case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.219.204 (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 

I don't know it anything has been stated yet, but this isn't a forum.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
She is in it. She plays Michael's mother again, this time appearing as a 'ghost' telling Michael to kill. I'm not making this up, I swear.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes on the trailer she is shown. Although she is telling Michael to kill her role in the new film has not yet been confirmed. Remember this isn't a forum.--Darkness2light (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a relevant question, and not just forum wankery, as the article deals with the cast of the movie, particularly those that are returning from the previous movie. And if this was the first movie that Zombie ever directed without Sherri, that would also be notable. Livingston 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well it isn't, and if it was it wouldn't be notable for this movie. It would be something for her page.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 11:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Although his current H2 status is undetermined -- what with the teaser trailer and all -- I think we should mention Daeg somewhere in the casting section. Daeg was, after all, contracted to return, but Rob Zombie, being the [fill in the blank] that he had to be, let him go because of something as trivial as height/age/puberty. I know the truth hurts, but I think it has a place in the article.
It's also worth noting that Daeg is used in the trailer for most, if not all, of the Young Michael scenes. We still don't know yet if he was superimposed or if it was him in the flesh, or if the footage was recycled from the remake or was H2 footage. We don't know if Rob has caved in and brought Daeg back (because he has gotten into some boiling hot water over the recast!), but something must be happening if Daeg is being used in the trailer and Young Michael is beginning to look more and more like Daeg with each new picture release.
Thanks for your suggestions! PF4Eva (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many unanswered, trivial questions.  Not really a place in the article until it is reported on, if it will be at all, by a reliable source.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out, Daeg was not used in the trailer at all. Who you saw was that new kid, they merely filmed scenes with him that were reminiscent of Daeg's scenes.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Daeg has confirmed that it was him, not Chase, in the ET footage and the trailer. [1]

Also check out: [2] [3]
Is this enough proof that it's Daeg in the trailer? PF4Eva (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
First, it isn't relevant to the page. Second, just because Daeg thinks he saw himself in the trailer doesn't mean he actually was. If you slow the trailer down, frame by frame, you will see that it's Chase and not Daeg. The image where you "see" young Mike's face is the same in both the trailer and the ET special, and again if you slow it down it's not Daeg. First, that would be rather stupid of Dimension to have to pay Daeg to use his image (and they would have to), when they've already recast the role. Even if Daeg is assuming that the shot of young Mike in the clown mask is him, that's all that is...an assumption. Unless he has proof that Dimension said "we're using your image in the trailer", he cannot be sure that Zombie didn't film some scenes with Chase that mirrored those of the first film. Regardless, it's still not relevant here.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's a photo comparison I found online of Daeg, Chase, and the H2 trailer footage. [4] You can clearly see that's Daeg's face. Plus, Daeg, I assume, would still be in touch with the producers, and if they were planning to use his image or not, they would tell him flat out. And they have told him they have retained the rights to his likeness and may use it in some form, which they did here. If Daeg says it's him (and it looks exactly like him, digitized or not), then it must be Daeg, right? I have seen the H2 trailer with my own eyes, and it is Daeg in most, if not every scene, whether or not he's superimposed onto Chase's body or otherwise altered.
But if you don't think any of it is relevant, then to each, his own, I guess. If you can't mention the trailer, at least mention that Daeg was to be in the film, but was recast. PF4Eva (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources, discussing it (not Daeg's MySpace account), and I'm sure it's fine to include.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There's an exclusive interview with Rob Zombie on Bloody-Disgusting and they go into detail about the Daeg casting controversy and why he was included in the trailer.  [5]. I think it's ready to be included in this article, now that Daeg's appearance in the trailer has been confirmed and the superimposition rumor has (unfortunately) been debunked. PF4Eva (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I've included it. Thanks for bringing it here. So it seems like it was the mistake of the trailer maker....oh well.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 22:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems they don't even know what they want to call this film. The newest poster is "Halloween 2". Zombie, in a recent interview acknowledged that he basically had no idea they were calling it "H2" in the trailer. Just to keep this from being moved multiple times, might I suggest we just stick to "H2" until the film is released, or Zombie or someone says "the official title is..."? This way we can avoid persistent moves as new material comes out that uses a different name.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The official site now says Halloween II [6]. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, and the TV spots are using Halloween II now. I think we'll need to go ahead and move this page to Halloween II (2009 film) and move Halloween II to Halloween II (1981 film).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rob stated on his MySpace that the poster he put there wasn't the real one, so I reverted the one here back to the original teaser.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone direct me to the source where Akkad says that something was "lost in translation" with the script by the Inside duo?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the last sentence of the second paragraph.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really feel this section is needed.  It seems quite trivial to me.  Does it really add anything to the context or production?  A fake band has a CD, great to know.  I think that's more fitting for the trivia page at IMDb.  I mean, this is just me, but I don't feel it means anything to the overall production.  Did he take time away from the film to produce this?  Does this feature his musical comeback?  I'm just saying it seems more trivial, not important.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 23:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no different then having a marketing section, or a viral marketing section like has been done recently with high profile films. WP:MOSFILMS#Secondary topics kind of covers this. It's relevant, to a point. I still don't think it needs an entire section to itself. I think it could be covered somewhere else - maybe as a subsection of "Production" since this is a band Zombie created just for the film that will also release a real album.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

its 19% rotten thats a pretty negative rating for it to be "overall aproved." also it says it was realeased on the 30th but it was released on the 28th. somebody should fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.113.70 (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC) 

I fixed the date, but it doesn't say "overall approved". It says the film has an "overall 19% approval". That means that only 19% of critics approved of the movie.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 13:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
ok i get it now nevermind72.174.113.70 (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, you misunderstood what I wrote in my edit; I put "as of August 30th" so we would NOT have to update it daily. Before it said the film's current rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which would make the article inaccurate should any new review be added. SO, if we put "as of (certain date), we can leave it be and only update it periodically.
--Musicool2 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It didn't say "current", it just listed the number. The only date being updated was the date on the source itself. Here is your edit. You added a "as of" date, but you also deleted information that doesn't actually change that often. The weighted mean does not fluctuate as easily as the percentage does, and both are necessary to understand the critical interpretation of the film. I've put the "as of" back in so safeguard against someone claiming the article is inaccurate (though, in reality they'd probably just updated it if they saw it was inaccurate).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the response. --Ben Wieneke (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that it was Malcolm McDowell was Dr.Loomis not Tyler Mane, Mane's character was Michael Myers. This mistake is only noted in the opening synopses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.247.140 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 

No it isn't. What it says is "Malcolm McDowell, Scout Taylor-Compton, and Tyler Mane, who portrayed Dr. Loomis, Laurie Strode, and Michael Myers in the 2007 film, respectively"...the respectively insinuates that the order of the character names reflects the order of the actor names. It's more professional than saying "McDowell portrays Loomis, and Compton portrays Laurie, and Mane portrays Michael".   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumor has it that a 3-D sequel, entitled "Halloween 3D", will be released in summer 2010. Weinstein Co. has confirmed that Rob Zombie will not be returning for the 3rd film. The studio is in negotiations with a new director, who was not mentioned by name, who has experience in horror and has a "different take" on the franchise.
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/halloween-3d-coming-in-summer-2010.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denk1025 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) 

It's mentioned at Halloween (franchise)#Future.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
as of now there is no need for the "HALLOWEEN (3D)" page it was announced not to be a sequel instead a Remake so there is no need to even add a sequel section on the main page maybe there better off remaking the halloween series each year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilightnewman (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 

Can someone get the release dates filled in properly as not all of us live in USA. Any chance imdbs listing of country dates can be used for a start and then in future the second a uk date gets announced someone can update this wiki to let us all know over here. Many thanks

To my knowledge, they have not officially announced any other release dates. You'll just have to wait, and no IMDb is not a reliable source.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 21:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
October 9
http://www.launchingfilms.co.uk/releaseschedule/schedule.php?sort=date&date=todayTlatseg (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I placed a VALID link for the DVD Release, and it was deleted.  WHY?  Problematic1014 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Because, when it comes to a future release of a film, Amazon is not a reliable source. They're fine for films that have already been released as a reference for that date, but when it comes to future releases we need an official announcement from the people that actually distribute the DVD.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, saw these guys in Columbus(Ohio) last night. The disambiguation page for Captain Clegg indicates a fictional band, but they do seem to be performing. Captain Clegg and the Night Creatures --67.149.219.196 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but the plot on this page is different on what I just seen on DVD? The ending is completely changed..--213.211.34.130 (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have your films mixed up. This film isn't out on DVD yet. I think you're thinking of the 2007 remake. That film has a different DVD ending because you're probably watching the Director's Cut of the film, which is different than the Theatrical Cut.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 04:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The Director's Cut of the remake ends exactly the same as its theatrical counterpart.  Now, the bootleg workprint, that's another story.  However, the Director's Cut of THIS film, Halloween II, which can be seen on YouTube (not to mention that the ending- a video, not a description, of the Director's Cut has been plastered over at least 10 horror movie websites.  It involves Michael ripping off his mask and killing Loomis.  Also, afterwards, the police open fire on Michael and he quite obviously dies.  Laurie comes out of the shack, picks up Michael's knife, and stands over Loomis' body.  But before she can act on it, she is shot three times by a police sniper, while Brackett screams "Hold your fire!  Hold your fire!" Laurie falls to ground, dying, as Brackett looks on in horror.  As the camera moves in on her body, the film transitions to the surreal psychiatric ward scene, but it is evident that these are simply her final hallucinations.  However, pieces of the hallway (other hallways, a water fountain) start to disappear, indicating that Laurie's life is slowly draining.  She sees her last vision of Deborah, and smiles, like in the theatrical, as "Love Hurts" plays.  And in the DIRECTOR'S CUT, it IS set TWO years later, as Zombie originally intended.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Problematic1014 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Here on the things. The director's cut version/endings/scenes wouldn't change what's in the plot of this page, because that's for the theatrical cut of the film. Unless we know why something was changed, which involves a reliable source reporting on that, then we cannot simply just iterate the differences. We can note that a Director's Cut or "Unrated Version" (as it's being called) is going to get released, but unless there is coverage on it then we cannot report on it. It's not our place to dictate on the page all the differences between various versions of a film. That said, we do have coverage of the alternate ending (sans the additional stuff about Laurie because it wasn't covered in the report) that was discussed by reliable sources and Zombie opting for the other ending.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Typically, I'd agree with you, but this isn't a normal theatrical/unrated difference, this is a rather extreme difference that totally changes the film.  A note should at least be made that the Director's Cut and the Theatrical Cut are quite different from each other, and that the Director's Cut isn't simply just "added scenes."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Problematic1014 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If/when it's reported by a reliable source, I agree. It isn't our job to point out differences. It's our job to bring together reliable sources that do that for us. I'm sure someone reliable, when the DVDs come out, will point out the major differences. The average reader typically understands from the getgo that a "Director's Cut" is usually pretty different from a "Theatrical Cut". Hell, Blade Runner has so many cuts and each makes the film almost completely different. We have the major differences in the endings already noted. Pointing out a timeline change (the film going from 1 year to 2 years) isn't that relevant to begin with, and if someone points out that Laurie gets shot at the end, then we can make the necessary additions/changes to the page. The point is, we cannot be the ones to point out the differences, because that means that we are the ones assigning a level of significance to those scenes...which puts us in original research territory.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, what if we link to one of the sites that is already reporting on this ending, as it was leaked recently, and for a few days, was the main headline on several reliable websites? Problematic1014 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the reliability of the website reporting, and how they are doing it. If they are one of the ones just linking to YouTube, then we cannot do it because we cannot use YouTube as a source given the legal issues of posting copyrighted material. If they are talking about it from the stand point of "we've seen it", and they are dictating in print the major differences, and they are a reliable source then we can talk about it.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, On I BELIEVE Bloody-Disgusting, they are actually HOSTING the clip on their site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.11.45 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, if you can't go by the plot by watching the movie the typing it in here then how in the world did the plot get on here? Someone had to watch it then put it here, if so then they were wrong to type it out just by watching the movie. If we need sources so do they not just watching it cause it's kind of wrong to say if one person watched the movie they can write the plot but if someone else watches it they can't correct the other person without proof or a source. They have as much "proof" as anyone else.--Gshaunsweeney (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
What I said was, you cannot watch a YouTube video and report on it, because YouTube is not a reliable source. For one, videos on YouTube get removed on a regular basis because they are posted without permission from the studio. Even when BloodyDisgusting hosts a video that doesn't mean they got permission from the studio to do so. Watching and reporting what happens in a theatrical film is different, because anyone can access it repeatedly without fear of it being deleted (as even when it leaves theaters it is released on DVD for additional viewing). Lastly, unless someone reports on the differences for us to do so would be both a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR, because you'd be placing undue weight and significance on differences that you saw, as opposed to some professional who is discussing why changes were made, which would border on original research.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, would it appease everyone to include a small director's cut section noting a few of the major differences? Problematic1014 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILMS, we don't just list differences between various versions of a film or films and their source material. If the differences are significant then they are usually noted by reliable sources. We have that covered when we talk about the different endings of the film based on the report of a reliable source. Director's Cut automatically insinuate that there is a difference between it and the theatrical version. If people want to know what all the differences are, then they should watch both versions.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be kinda hard seeing as the Theatrical Version is extremely hard to find.  Problematic1014 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Also there is a site called http://movie-censorship.com that shows most of the differences between Theatrical, Unrated, Directors Cut, etc.  Halloween II is not listed yet though.   [7]  However, as it's been noted, such details is not encyclopedic, fancruft maybe. —Mike Allen 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You can pick up in stores, or on Amazon rather easily.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 02:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
so bignole you say that you have to with the theatrical version for the plot and not the dvd version yet the article on the 1st one goes by the dvd version and not the theatrical wich ends in michael being shot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.103.195 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 

That's not true. The article on the first film goes by the theatrical version of the film. The first film's page reads:"Laurie takes Loomis' gun and runs upstairs; she is chased by Michael, wh
o, after cornering her on a balcony, charges her head-on and knocks both of them over the railing. Laurie finds herself on top of a bleeding Michael. Aiming Loomis' gun at his face, she repeatedly pulls the trigger until the gun finally goes off just as Michael's hand grips Laurie's wrist."That is how the theatrical film ends.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
no it isnt i saw it TEN times in theater and michael gets shot outside the house rob zombie even said that he changed the ending for the dvd please check your facts sir  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.103.195 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 

I have, and the only thing Zombie changed for the ending on the DVD is what happens directly after Michael gets shot. He's still shot on the DVD. He was shot in the theater, and shot in the DVD, and the plot section of the Wiki article insinuates that he was shot. Since you don't actually see Michael with a bullet hole, we can only report on what we actually see. In the theater version, you see Laurie pulling the trigger of the gun repeatedly while aimed at Michael and it goes off just as he grabs her wrist. That's all you see and all we can say. Read what I posted.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there was NO difference in the endings for Halloween '07.  The Director's Cut DVD has the exact same ending that was in theaters (it can be verified by watching the theatrical version- that IS available on DVD, it just has to be ordered, much like the theatrical version of H2, which isn't available in most stores. Problematic1014 (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, go back and watch it and you'll see a difference after Laurie shoots Michael. The moments after that are what are different in the endings.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
No, both cuts end with Laurie pulling the trigger, the gun going off, her screaming and grabbing her face, and fading to a flashback of baby Michael and Laurie, which her screams continue over, building up to the Halloween theme and with police sirens, and as the screen cuts to "Directed by Rob Zombie", the screams and sirens stop, as the music continues.  There is one SMALL difference WAY after, which is the removal of Bill Moseley's (whose scene is only in the theatrical) credit and its accompanying video clip.  I know this because I watched BOTH endings, simultaneously, director's cut on my computer and theatrical on my TV, and it was in sync the whole time.  And to support my point, THIS webpage lists every difference, even minute ones, in ORDER, and it jumps from Loomis grabbing Michael's leg, to the credits.:  http://movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=4706Problematic1014 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"The way we cut it for the theatrical, Laurie Strode’s character is the main difference in the two. (In the theatrical) She’s holding it together, getting her life together and it starts spiraling downward. In the other version, she’s an incredible mess and gets worse. She never has any good moments, she’s just messed up, she’s lashing out at everyone, she’s horrible. Messed up on drugs, she’s just completely spun out through the whole movie. It makes for a real challenging movie to watch and I feel like I don’t know if fans would’ve embraced so much darkness." Source:[8] —Mike Allen 07:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best just to let people put a section about the director's cut since most movies that has one has a section for it on here.
Except, most movies that are featured articles don't have them unless they are particularly notable.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 01:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I vote for either a separate "Directors Cut" section or just a note at the end of the "Plot" section. It's obvious that several people think there should be one, and someone looking for the alternate ending will come to this article page. When I look through the history, I see one user who keeps overriding other people's edits, essentially highjacking the page. And that's not how Wikipedia should be. If it's correct & relevant information, you should allow it and stop rolling back. Omegacron 18:23, 01 JUN 2017 (UTC)

First, we don't vote for stuff. Second, unless there is critical commentary on the alternate ending (per WP:MOSFILM), then we don't list it. It's not uncommon to have different versions of a film. Film pages reflect the theatrical verson of the subject. We don't change that simply because "people want it).   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 12:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The page states that its "One year later" but the movie states its "Two years later" which makes this page wrong.--125.238.72.54 (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Director's Cut says "Two Years Later"....the theatrical version, which is the version we are supposed to use when writing the plot summary, only says that one year has passed.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
who plays paul?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.174.57 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC) 

Did Laurie Strode survived the bullets from the guns? Because I discovered that she is acting as Laurie in Halloween III. Peekarica (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Halloween II (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090911132906/http://newyork.timeout.com:80/articles/film/77981/halloween-ii-film-review to http://newyork.timeout.com/articles/film/77981/halloween-ii-film-review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween II (2009 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509082316/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/interview/560 to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/interview/560
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804195219/http://www.brutalashell.com/2009/07/interview-captain-clegg-the-nightcreatures/ to http://www.brutalashell.com/2009/07/interview-captain-clegg-the-nightcreatures/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)