Talk:Black Christmas (2006 film)

message: :::I believe the plot section has all messed up. There are too many sentences joined together and some of them have mixed to an extent that they make no sense. If somebody can, please correct this section.
Amol Shah 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It's full of grammar errors, and crammed packed full of unnecessary details... Especially comments such as "rich bitch"... Are they really necessary? Unconscious (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy crap.  Is that the novelization?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've hacked it down to something readable; I cut the entire section about the murders, its standard slasher fare, and kept the bits that differentiate this film from others -Bazzargh (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot summary looks like it's been written by a fourth grader. There's a little something called compound sentences. Also whoever did the characters section needs to learn what the hell a table is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.186.94 (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: She plays Britney Soring and will be killed in the movie 
 Never mind. She only appears in the original cut.
What you mean by original cut? That's the 1974 verson. Mya wasnt even a gleam in her parents eye yet. Unless of course you mean the fact that they made 4 different versions to this flick. Man, I can't wait for the dvd.74.195.3.11 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mýa's in Black Christmas 

message: http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/CrystalLoweBlackXmas.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/Laceydead.jpg
why cant I put these two pictures to be seen on the website???
:You'd have to upload them onto the Wikipedia server while tagging them properly in regard to their copyright. Then you'd have to use wikiformatting to insert them into the article, not BBCode like you used here. 75.2.6.207 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I was reading through that section and noticed that the fact that Glen Morgan either wrote/produced or directed any Final Destination film is mentioned at least three separate times, as well as the fact that he is married to one of the actresses, Cloke, being mentioned at least twice throughout.
I didn't want to go in and remove some of the instances myself since other editors tend to revert that (a feeling of being overly possessive and territorial in regard to articles they edit I suppose) so addressing it here for consideration by the collective editors who have interest in this article to consider revising as they see fit. 75.2.6.207 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the extra two or three references to Final Destination, and commented out another redundant bit of trivia.  -Elizabennet 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a collective effort, mate. If you're going to ignore anything that's wrong with the article, don't be an editor. I made a major revision of the trivia section, but people are still adding random crap to it, so keep an eye out.--Agent Aquamarine 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Redundancy 

message: what happened to the spoiler that included all the deaths?  i read it earlier tonight but now i can't find it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.101.130 (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  body count 

message: Are both really neccessary? ONEder Boy 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis and Plot

message: Has anyone counted how many times the word "fuck" was used in this film? At least 20, I think. Maybe much, much more.
Why does it matter? If you think 20 is alot, go check out Blair Witch Project. It's said at least 133 times. But, why do you care, 20 is very little compared to how some films are.
:"Fuck" was said way too fucking much by a group of supposedly respectable young ladies. You cast a bunch of cute girls, then make them utterly unattractive by having them say "fuck" ad infinitum. Varlaam (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fuck"

message: I'm going to fix up the trivia section, the spelling and grammar in it is deplorable. I'm not going to look for errors in the other sections, so that's up to you guys.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.149 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: Should there be a section where we can post the differences from the original here? It'll be way useful, but I'm not sure of all of the differences, so I'd like to know if there'd be some assistance with me posting this. StupidityxLEAK (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences From Original 

message: The Battle of Khe Sanh element is not developed at all. Why is there so much emphasis on the Raveonettes poster with Peter Lorre on it? Varlaam (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster is based on the poster for Mad Love (1935 film), a great movie by the way. Varlaam (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khe Sanh 

message: The production section in this article is way too short and only gives very few information on the film's production, this should be expanded in more detail with more information added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Black Christmas (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.horrorreview.com/essay/egblackchristmasessay2006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please stop adding unsourced claims that the film has been "disowned".  Also, Wikipedia does not pronounce films as a success or failure; we merely report how much money that they grossed.  It is original research to characterize a film as a success, and it is likely original research to characterize the reviews as positive or negative based on your own interpretation of a Rotten Tomatoes score.  Instead, we should flatly state the facts of the matter without interpreting the data.  I don't understand why we would even need to interpret a review aggregator; the whole point of using Rotten Tomatoes is that they've already interpreted the data for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claims and original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Black Christmas (2006 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/20121109053213/http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-12-11 to http://imdb.com/news/sb/2006-12-11#film5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is looking great, although it would be nice to see the original film get this much love and attention as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status and the Original Film