# Talk:The Frighteners

What does "(Sean Astin's daughter also appears in The Return of the King as Sam's daughter Elanor Gamgee, so that Jackson has worked with three generations of Astins.)" have to do with The Frighteners? Sontra 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, so I deleted it. I also deleted the bit about the ghost sfx foreshadowing the LOTR army of ghosts sequence; the army bit was written years before this movie. Lots42 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller has now fixed the whole situation. Awesome! Wildroot (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:The Frighteners DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I rented both DVDs from Netflix recently, and the film was the same cut that I had on VHS from the 1990s. The 2nd disc is a very long documentary about the filming, made by Peter Jackson and company, for "the laserdisc release." Several times during the interviews, particularly discussing cut scenes from the theatrical cut, Jackson refers to them being "seen for the first time on this Laserdisc release." But none of those scenes were in the film. Can someone else confirm or deny that the DVD version is somehow longer or different from the original theatrical and initial home video release? If not, I'll strike that from the appropriate section.
I still have the 2nd disc documentary, and since this is a candidate, can review the article with the documentary for accuracy. Will try to add better writing, too, as that seems to be the last point for GA status. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Frighteners/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
"Frustrated by his inability to fight the reaper, Frank attempts to kill himself but Lucy gets him to instead go to the freezing works so that he can be brought back." This sentence is a bit confusing, it sounds like Bannister wants to kill himself because he can't fight Bartlett, you should mention that he tries to kill himself so he can fight Bartlett.The casting section looks a bit weird, if casting information can't be provided you should explain who the character is, see The Brothers Grimm for example. Another option is putting casting information in a different section."Zemeckis and Universal agreed on the condition that Jackson make New Zealand look similar to the Midwestern United States." make -> made"Some shots were farmed out..." what do you mean with "Farmed out"In the Reception section, there's no need for Rotten Tomatoes and IGN to be italicized, since they're websites and per here."The Frighteners received mixed reviews from New Zealand, Jackson's native country" how can New Zealand comment on the movie? The sentence should rephrased to something like "The Frighteners received mixed reviews critics from New Zealand, Jackson's native country".
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There's only one image in the entire article, at least one more image should be added (there's plenty of free material to use, but a screenshot to visually identify the visual effects would be nice too). The only image, is tagged because it has no author info (a way to resolve this is replacing the current template with {{Non-free use rationale}}), and has no caption.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I'll place the article on hold, until the above concerns are fixed. This page is on my watchlist, so you don't have to contact me when you've fixed the issues. Good luck.--Music26/11 15:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Extra comment; could info about the soundtrack be provided? (this link might help). Again, Good Luck.--Music26/11 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting closer to finish addressing the concerns. I just need to write the Cast descriptions and add a Soundtrack section. Thanks for reviewing. Wildroot (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. Oh, also, the word "Scythe", has a capital S, and I would link the word since I didn't know what it was until I searched for it (but, then again, that me be just me). Anyhow, good luck with fixing my concerns.--Music26/11 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I finished addressing your concerns. I think the article is ready. Wildroot (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, but there are a few things left: the part in the characters section on Ray Lynskey has no info, the part on magda-rees jones says "local new anchor", I think you mean news. Also, the Soundtrack section has no references and the tracklisting takes up to much place, perhaps you can provide some info on the reception of the score (and maybe move it to the release section). See Dexter to make the tracklist collapsable.--Music26/11 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I fixed the general concerns, but I feel that soundtrack reviews for a film article are not really mandatory for GA status. However, the AllMusic mention is sort of a great start. What do you think? Wildroot (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you see, I would really like to pass the article, but a section that is only two sentences long is just too short. So if you can't find any information to expand the section, you can remove the section.--Music26/11 12:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)P.S.: Check out the soundtrack section in Tenebrea, for possible inspiration.--Music26/11 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added some information for the soundtrack per request. It's pretty non-notable stuff, but it's the best I can find. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Great job! I think this article is ready. Wildroot (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic! GA pass.--Music26/11 13:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Frighteners. 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/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 01:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Frighteners. 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/20090223222652/http://deseretnews.com/movies/review/1%2C5208%2C653%2C00.html to http://deseretnews.com/movies/review/1%2C5208%2C653%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709064126/http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-Frighteners to http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-Frighteners
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) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"However, the spirit of a mass murderer appears able to attack the living and the dead, posing as the Grim Reaper, prompting Frank to investigate the supernatural presence"
Is a huge spoiler for something that is hinted at but not revealed until the second half of the movie. I'm removing this 2603:8000:D400:7A96:FC13:89F1:728B:E076 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, beat-for-beat, it's difficult to follow.
The statement "Most locals consider him a con man" is confusing because he is a con-man.
No mention of Ray's ghost, which is an important part of the story, nor is there any mention of Ray and The Judge's spirits being "killed."
The statement "They escape with the help of Cyrus and Stuart, who are both dissolved in the process" makes no sense if there's no mention of the Reaper's ability to "kill" ghosts.  Additionally "dissolves" isn't really the right word.
Bartlett's backstory seems weirdly specific for what is supposed to be a concise summary.
Similarly, Dammers being a victim of the Manson family isn't strictly necessary.  Referring to him as mentally unstable or troubled is good enough.  Also, the article ignores that it wasn't the only thing that messed him up.  In fact, the movie indicates it mostly his being forced to infiltrate Satanic cults more than anything.
Patricia comes out of nowhere in the final few paragraphs.
The statements "Frank's friend, Sheriff Walt Perry, reveals that the police discovered a huge collection of Ouija Boards in Patricia's room. This causes Frank to realize that Patricia used them to bring Bartlett back to the world of the living." are wholly unnecessary and just crowd the final paragraph.
Etc.
It's just a really wonky plot synopsis that seems to ignore things that should be included while adding needless detail for things that should not be included.
I understand the person who wrote it is probably a fan and attached to it...  but it's just slightly poorl written.
MaximumMadness2 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia for a while. Also, events don't have to be in chronological order as per WP:FILMPLOT and there's some overlinking concerns as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I actually think the most recent contributions from you and Darkwarriorblake are basically 100% perfect.  I felt like the article as it was before, was a bit difficult to follow and put too much focus on the wrong details.  But this current rendition seems fine.  The from-the-ground-up rewrite he did, along with your different tweaks, makes it a lot easier to understand. MaximumMadness2 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)