Talk:Friday the 13th (2009 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Good work! These objections shouldn't take long to address. Please address each one individually and I'll strike them out as we go.

Intro:

• "...Jason's mask was always brought back to its roots..." "Always" doesn't seem like the correct phrase here. Perhaps "also"?
  • You're right. That was a typo on my part. I've fixed this.

Development:

• "Paramount, which wanted to be included, approached the producers and gave them license to use anything from the original films, including the title." I assume this was in exchange for something, like co-production credit or money or something? Can you clarify?
  • I wish I could for many reasons. Paramount did get something, but the source material doesn't address it. What they ultimately got was the right to release the film internationally. Just as unfortunate, the source has apparently already become a dead link and the Internet Archives cannot retrieve it, so it's all unusable at the moment until I can find a replacement source. I have put hidden markers around it, because I don't want to delete the info completely until I'm sure I cannot find a source for it. Found an archived copy. The actual quote from the article is: "All of that seemed moot until Paramount came knocking and said that they wanted to play. MTV Films came on board as well, and suddenly everything was changed � they had the rights to the title and to the first film." -- I could take "wanted to play" and say that's clear they wanted in on the action, but it's really vague and doesn't really say what they did. I could, possibly, tack on "Paramount would ultimately become the film's international distributor", as that is true but would border dangerously close to synthesis. Thoughts  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I suppose we should play it safe and avoid the potentional synthesis. Can we say something as general and vague as Paramount "became involved" or "became officially involved" with the movie? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I did the "ultimately became the international..". To me, you could argue that it isn't real synthesis because it isn't advancing a real position, just clarifying what they eventually became for the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
        • OK. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, writers of Freddy vs. Jason, were announced in October 2007 to have been hired to pen a script for the remake." This reads awkwardly. Can you reword it?
  • How does this sound: "In October 2007, Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, the writers of Freddy vs. Jason, were hired to write the script for the remake."??
    • That's fine. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Writing:

• "One of these deaths included a kill in the water of Crystal Lake." Can you reword "a kill in the water"?
  • I just cut the first part, and reworded the second sentence: "Shannon and Swift had originally written a scene where one of the female characters was stranded out on the lake for hours." -- I also believe that I have a second interview with them where they further clarify that she was out of the lake for hours because she had seen Jason and was afraid to swim to shore. I'll check on that.
    • I've struck the objection, but after you check on that, please update it accordingly. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Box office:

• • • • Sorry, I totally forgot to check it after I left the responses. Here you go. Luckily, I remembered that I had used that second interview, so all it took was a ref name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "On its opening day, Friday the 13th grossed $19,293,446, and immediately surpassed the total box office grosses for Jason Takes Manhattan (1989), Jason Goes to Hell (1993), and Jason X (2002)." Does this mean it grossed more than each of these movies, or the three movies total grosses combined? Please clarify. Also, do you have the total gross figures for those three movies? If so, it would be great if they could be included here.
  • How's this?
    • Good! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• "Thanks to its opening weekend take, Friday the 13th currently sits in fourth place for all time President's Day weekends, just behind Ghost Rider (2007), 50 First Dates (2004), and Daredevil (2003)." Again, it would be cool to have those grosses included here as well.
  • Done
• "With its $55 million in domestic box office, Friday the 13th was the second highest grossing film among the recent slasher remakes, which included When a Stranger Calls (2006), Halloween (2007), Prom Night (2008) and My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009), and tenth when comparing it to remakes of all types of horror." If Friday the 13th was second, can you include which one was first (and if possible, how much it made?)
  • Done.

--Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A good article is:

1. Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
4. Neutral: Yes.
5. Stable: Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.