Jump to content

Talk:Jeepers Creepers (2001 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJeepers Creepers (2001 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 20, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the production of Jeepers Creepers, a budget cut of $1 million resulted in a third of the film being rewritten?


Request for clarification

[edit]

# An alternate ending in which the final shot in the theatrical ending was more of a subtle insinuation than a graphic display of what happened.

Could somebody please rewrite this line? Is the extended ending more or less explicit than the original theatrical release ending? I'd do it myself, but I don't know which one showed more. GutterMonkey 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

This article is too short and has several important sections that remain underdeveloped. The production section is way too short, consisting of a single sentence and should be expanded in more detail. The Reception section is also too short and needs more reviews from notable critics added to it. The home media section is improperly developed and should be rewritten, this section is also unsourced and should be given citations for its information. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a good article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeepers Creepers (2001 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:

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) 17:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

This article is incomplete and has several sections that need to be expanded in more detail than what they currently are. The production section is too short and needs to be expanded in far more detail with information on the film's development, casting, filming, and design added to the article with appropriate citations given for its information. The reception section is also too short and needs more reviews from notable critics added to it as well (with the appropriate citations). There is also no information on the film's home media releases which needs to be added to the article as well. This article could be GA Status worthy if enough attention was given to it and all the things listed above done so that it meets Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and Properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dude From North Carolina Great work with the article. You really did some great research. Keep up the good work.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

Does anyone have any information why Germany is featured everywhere as a country of production alongside USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.234.170 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source to back this up here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery

[edit]

I've removed the mystery genre on the lead intro. Although it was sourced, it was sourced to a Box office status report. It's not clear if the film was watched or how genre was intepreted here, so you can find several more specific sources within. Also, throughout the article the film is referred to a horror film predominantly, so we should have the lead of the article reflect what is in the prose as that's standard wikipedia stuff. I'm open to more thoughts on this.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new New York Times review does add the genre, but I feel my point stands. We should probably look around instead of just hunting and pecking and choosing genres and get the overall consensus. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monster movie

[edit]

You could also probably drop the extraneous genre of "monster movie" to the lead as it's already clear in the very next sentence that the film is a monster movie with it mention of a "demonic creature" as "It stars Gina Philips and Justin Long as a pair of siblings who are pursued by a demonic creature and mysterious serial killer known as the Creeper portrayed by Jonathan Breck. " Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not really deeming this down to a vote @Some Dude From North Carolina:, I'm bringing it up to discuss. Rotten Tomatoes as a genre source sounds weak as it's not clear how information on genre is gathered. It's not fair for readers. I'd lean towards going by prose by critics who have read the film or academics who have studies the genre. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, things like genre are subjective. And per the standards of wikipedia, the genre of the film belonging to horror far outweighs any mention of mystery. As for your suggestion of following WP:FILMLEAD]], I'm actually going forward with this as it states "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." In this case, from what I've said above, that appears to be horror and not the other genres you mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrzejbanas: You just said this was for a discussion, so taking action now would be hypocritical. The film is clearly a horror movie as much as it is a mystery. Including the fact that it was a monster movie is also obvious to do. WP:FILMLEAD says to include all genres, or sub-genre. which have been verified, and "mystery-horror monster" have all been verified by various critics. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Film lead doesn't say to include all genres, it says to include the primary genre. So what you are proposing would be incorrect. I'll take a bit to look up what sources are saying. But to be clear and fair, let's take it from sources that actually have been proven to see the film (i.e: let's not take it from databases if possible). I believe that's the most proper way to handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So going through a list here:

  • BBC states "An unsettling, gory, but intelligent horror flick" here
  • Chicago Tribune: "You might think that even the most dim-witted horror movie would have an internal logic." here
  • GW Hatchet: " Horror film Jeepers Creepers (MGM) does not instill terror in its viewers as much as pure disgust." here
  • Slate: "Jeepers Creepers hurtles in on the latest wave of crappy slasher pictures like I Know WhatYou Did Last Summer (1997) and Urban Legend (1998), and it has elements in common with both, especially the tendency of its attractive young protagonists to allude, between screams, to the conventions of the horror genre."
  • NYT: "Jeepers Creepers, a cannier-than-average teen horror movie," here
  • The Guardian: "The first 15 minutes of this horror flick are great" [1]
  • AV Club: "Jeepers Creepers makes occasional reference to its cinematic forebears, but is distinguished largely by its adherence to the stripped-down template of the no-frills horror B-movie."

And that's just sources in the article itself. None of them mention mystery (outside a header bar, in the NYT article). I would be misleading to describe it belonging to mystery as the articles sources itself focus far more primarily on horror per WP:BALANCE, it would be misleading and dishonest to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favour of keeping genres in the lead as simple as possible - we have the rest of the lead to talk about other any genre elements that need to be considered - and it looks like "horror" is the primary genre mentioned by sources here...? Popcornfud (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Viewers point of view doesn't really matter on wikipedia so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. I've shown the rules (and some that you have brought up) of why including niche genres that aren't really represented here. I'll need some actual backing from you on this genre that's not just database sources. Otherwise, It's probably best to drop it based on the statements above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources: [2][3][4][5]. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie calls it "Genres - Horror|Sub-Genres - Creature Film, Teen Movie"[6]. I consider them one of the best sources we have for film genre classification, so if they don't even mention Mystery as a subgenre, I don't feel we should either. DonIago (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one for Horror. And @Some Dude From North Carolina:, you should quote what you are trying to say instead of dumping sources on us. From your NYT article it says "With "Jeepers Creepers 2," writer-director Victor Salva had the opportunity either to answer some of these questions, or at least to deepen the mystery and anxiety that surrounds them.". Now, the mystery term does not seem to be talking about the film belonging to the genre or anything, and even worse, it's talking about Jeepers Creepers 2. Not this film. The Chicago Tribune article appears to be repeat of this same story so that nix's that one. Your screen rant source has no attributed author so it doesn't even suggest how the genre is sourced or if anyone associated with that has seen the film. The Herald Tribune article says "Still, that modestly budgeted horror movie was marked by certain dollops of style, mystery and dark foreboding." so it calls it a horror film again and just uses the term mystery in a way that doesn't really sound like they are describing the genre. I'm sorry, but you aren't really making any headway with your argument here. That's why I didn't want to make it a vote as it's not addressing the issues I've brought up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As there has not been a lot of convincing arguments against WP:BALANCE and the evidence we have provided above (alternative suggestions appear to be referring to other films or have been very minimal in comparison to other genres), I suggest we move forward with just having this labeled as a straight horror film in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No argument here. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One approach I'd like to see taken is a "Genre classifications" section for films that don't have a straightforward label. I admit I have not undertaken it yet, but I'd like to for something like Fight Club, which lacks a genre in the opening sentence due to no predominant genre. Such a section would allow a film to be defined stylistically, which isn't really done in other sections. Food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree @Erik:, and I've done that in some articles where genre is a little less cut and dry. I've done that on a few articles in the past (Drug War (where someone has already come in and added Rotten Tomatoes link to give it genre *grumble grumble*), Blood and Black Lace, The Record, etc.). I've tried adding some discussion on the film The Lighthouse on its talk page, but nobody has really responded to it. As for Fight Club, It's an article I don't have on my watch list but I can only imagine how often people jump in to add what they believe are "obvious" genres to it. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be an overwhelming push for just leaving it as horror, i'll be changing the genre now. Thanks to everyone for discussing it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that during the production of Jeepers Creepers, a budget cut of $1 million resulted in a third of the film being rewritten?

Improved to Good Article status by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 14:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Qualifies as a recently-promoted GA (promoted 20 April, nominated 21 April). Well-written and fully-sourced with in-line citations. Earwig finds no copyvios; the only matches are attributed quotes. Hooks are good; the second is the creepiest, but isn't actually in the article – and the closest bit there (about him acting like various animals) is not found in either source listed at the end of that sentence. Some Dude From North Carolina, can you please fix that and ping me when you've done so? MeegsC (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC:  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dude! AGF on ALT2, which is sourced to supplementary DVD commentary; the rest of the hooks are verified online. This one is good to go. MeegsC (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cab over engine (CoE)

[edit]

The Creeper's truck isn't a CoE as the engine sits in front of the cab. Maikel (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeepers_Creepers_(2001_film)&oldid=1229836281"