Talk:Halloween II (1981 film)/Archive 1

message: I have rewritten/updated this article in a similar fashion as I did Halloween (film). Added sections on production, reception, criticism, etc. Deleted content that was apparently copy and pasted from other sites on additional material in the "alternate version." Added pictures. Please copyedit and critique. Dmoon1 07:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: from Time Out magazine's film guide edited by tom milne second edition 1991, p277 reprinting original magazine review by David Pirie:
"92 minutes"
The first Halloween had such an ancient maniac-on-the-loose theme that it was easy to miss just how original the film was in its ue of the new gliding Steadicam to prolong audience identification with the villain. Rosenthal is no Carpenter, but he makes a fair job of emulating the latter's visual style in this sequel (co-scripted by Carpenter) which takes up where the earlier film left off. The action is now largely set in a terrorised local hospital, while the villain has so palpably becom an agent of Absolute Evil that any assocations with contemporary sexual violence are fortunately diminished. The result won't make any converts, but Jamie Lee Curtis is as good as ever. 
Zzzzz 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorporated some of this, thanks for your input. Dmoon1 13:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: timeout review

message: The author of the novelization mentions the HII one here  which might have something worth incorporating - his relationship with Carpenter and Carpenter's producer's and his script for H4.  Although one of the FAC people thought the article is already too long... Шизомби 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelization

message: "Can't have one sentence paragraphs".....An interesting comment, seeing as though the paragraph in question was two sentences. 
I'm concerned that someone is having a sense that they "own" the article here. NickBurns 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous user's edits were not changed. The short paragraph was simply merged with the one beneath it. In my opinion (and that of those who supported the article at FAC), the section was fine as it was before the anonymous editor saw fit to change it. Dmoon1 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Why is this catagorized under "Films Based on Urban Legends?" What urban legend is it based on? The Swagga 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this category, since the film itself is not based on an urban legend, but merely references one. This category is meant for films that are mostly based on urban legends, such as When a Stranger Calls or Urban Legend. Dmoon1 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Legends 

message: Noticed some minor flaws in the article; inconsistent use of italics (it alternates between Halloween II and Halloween II).  Also it mentioned Halloween 4: The Revenge of MM.  H4 is the Return while H5 is the Revenge, if I remember correctly.  Paul730 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flaws

message: I am feeling ambitious today, so I have executed the Wiki-recommended merge of the Halloween II: The Producer's Cut content into this article. Obviously, there is a lot of redundant info to delete, so please feel free to edit/delete anything I miss. Any input will be appreciated. --Pisceandreams 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited as much as I can at the moment. I would need to return to the article later with a fresh perspective to check for redundant info and the general flow of the article. --Pisceandreams 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you Dmoon1 that the list of differences between the two versions was unnecessary. I figured I would leave the decision as to whether or not to keep it up to someone who has been editing/contributing to the article for a while. --Pisceandreams 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content Merge from [[Halloween II: The Producer's Cut]]

message: Wow you guys are such cards when potted.--Goon Noot 12:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  haha funny have this article for halloween 

message: I added material from Halloween to this article.  Bearian 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Not sure if it's notable or not, but Dana Carvey has a small speaking part in this film (his first film role, I believe). While he's not as huge a star today as he was ten years ago, it might be worth mentioning. Kelvingreen 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: ERROR ERROR Slight sense of humor detected. haha yeah doesn't this seem a bit informal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.29.254 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ("no pun intended")

message: Being that this is a featured article, shouldnt there be a picture to go with it?
~~
:There's a poster in the infobox.  What other picture do you mean?  Paul730 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I wonder if the lead to this article spends too much time talking about other entries in the series, and not enough on the particular film itself? --217.42.3.3 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to Lead? 

message: Why does the template say this will appear on the main page on Halloween 2008 when it already appeared there on Halloween 2007? 70.64.77.186 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. If you click on "edit this page" the wikicode clearly says "|maindate=31 October, 2007". Dmoon1 (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainpage date 

message: Jimmy was never given a last name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doghowlett18 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy 

message: As mentioned, there is no need to disambiguate in cases like this. As per Dawn of the Dead, a "hatnote" is sufficient. Creating a disambiguation page simply breaks hundreds of incoming links, and is never required when there are only two articles to disambiguate. Please note its not a "popularity contest", there is no "winner" of primary topic, so it doesnt matter that currently a new film is receiving a surge of popularity, wikipedia is not a news site. the original naming convention has now been restored. a single click, as clearly displayed in the hatnote at the top of the article, will take new film fans to the alternative article. cheers.Zzzzz (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 3 articles to disambiguate, counting Halloween II (album). Ribbet32 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Renaming to Halloween II (1981 film) makes sense to me.  It's clearer and avoids confusion. A quick run through AutoWikiBrowser can fix any redirects. As Zzzzz says, this is not a popularity contest and Halloween II should be the redirect page. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't rename this page

message: 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) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: Halloween II fans are calling for a boycott of the recently-released 30th Anniversary Blu-ray due to the replacement of Moustapha's name with Universal's. To Halloween fans, this is like taking Alfred Hitchcock's name off a Hitchcock movie or taking Steven Spielberg's name off Jaws. Malek Akkad is right, this is disgusting and a disgrace. What do you think? And is it notable enough for inclusion? It's getting big press right now. PF4Eva (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal removes "[[Moustapha Akkad]] Presents" credit & boycott 

message: You know? I hate the fact that WP:FAR requires discussion here first. However, I have no choice. Reliability of HalloweenMovies.com is unknown, and IMDB is used as a source, which should not be. :File:HalloweenII title.jpg or :File:HalloweenIIscreencap.jpg should be removed. I planned to have this article demoted, but improvement is encouraged. To be honest, I have no interest on improving this article because... I like demoting it. But how will we fix everything without removing valuable information? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the IMDB references are to do with the cast and crew's previous or subsequent careers, with exceptions for the Saturn Award nomination and international release (specifically that the film was shown in Canada, the Philippines and Japan). As I'm about to start going through secondary film sources for another article, I'll keep an eye out for replacement sources for these, as this is perhaps the most glaring problem. --xensyriaT 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues for this "Featured Article"