Talk:Joe Dante

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Mid-importance).

Horror High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we have a category for recurring actors in Joe Dante's films?

Since Joe Dante uses so many actors repeatedly in his films, (like Dick Miller, Bob Picardo, Paul Bartel, and Kevin MacCarthy to name just a few), I feel there should be a catergory for Dante's stock company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Pannozzi (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regret over The Phantom

Several people have tried to remove this claim. I am the one who posted it. I read it in one of two places--Starlog or Cinefantastique in an article on either The Warlord: Battle for the Galaxy or Small Soldiers. If it was in Cinefantastqiue, I have it in storage in another state. If in Starlog, I don't have it at all. The New York Public Library, unfortunately, does not have Cinefantastique after 1991, and does not have Starlog at all, so it will be difficult for me at this point to find a more specific citation. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relative failure

There is no discussion of Dante's relative (and undeserved) lack of success. (In the running commentary for Gremlins, he ironically -- almost sarcastically -- refers to it as "Joe Dante's Greatest Hit".) Nor is there a discussion of his ability to effectively and attractively direct child actors. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Dante. 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/20140728222533/http://www.labiennale.org:80/en/cinema/71st-festival/line-up/off-sel/out-of-competition/ to http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/71st-festival/line-up/off-sel/out-of-competition/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes: Back in Action

An unregistered user, using multiple IP's, has been harassing me for the last couple of weeks, reverting my edits, just because he/she is upset at me for a dispute we had at the Jeff Bergman article. This is one of those articles. He or she keeps deleting my information on the "After 2000" section, about Dante having directed Back in Action. Is there any way to resolve this, like temporarily suspending this page to nonregistered users?

-- Dpm12 (16:09 PST; 24 December 2016)

I really need some discussions on thos people. It STILL keeps happening Dpm12 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--This isn't really where you make these statements on wikipedia, and I haven't been harassing you. I simply see that you are making an incorrect statement that even you citations don't back up. The way to solve this is to make a new section, as I just have, about the problem. You haven't made any, nor have you ever given your opinions into the statements I make on the talk pages.

Back in Action Rating

When a film receives 50-66% ratings on sites such as rotten tomatoes, these are mixed reviews, not mixed positive. Mixed-positive is more on the line of 66-80%. A 57% rating is not mixed-positive. Are there any thoughts on this?207.97.161.146 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to check talk page for consensus. Anyways, I changed it to mixed for more neutral language. Also, to the IP, why didn't you just change the language a bit, like I did? I left a warning on your talk page for blanking the content, please don't do it again. Leaving a message on the talk page or asking for a neutral opinion is the way to go, not edit warring. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the disagreements are starting. When a film gets mixed reviews-mixed is being generous as it is rotten on RT-bombing isn't a surprise. Thus, there really isn't a reason to put this on here in the first place. 207.97.161.146 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

57% is still considered a mixed rating. It isn't 17% or anything. And, Metacritic gives a 63 which they consider "generally positive reviews". If you include RT AND Metacritic, it does have mixed reviws, and Riley, I guarantee you, will attest to this. Dpm12 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

57% being a mixed rating seems like it is in your mind, but you have to look at the definition. It is a rotten film on the site, as that is how the film's grades come out. As for Meta, it is like a grade in school. 60-70 may seem a decent grade range, but they are in the D's, which are not good. Meta has many give it 100 when they say it is just fine which increases the grade very much, especially with the small number of votes it gets-32 as compared to 51 for a film such as "La La Land".

Also the point I am making is that even if it is a mixed review this fact shouldn't be put here. When a film receives mixed reviews and then bombs, it isn't surprising. The mixed reviews mean that many people thought the film lacked quality, and thus they could easily represent the common audience. 68.47.63.219 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joe Dante. 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) 04:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Dante. 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) 10:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Joe Dante

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Joe Dante's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sherman":

From List of science fiction television films: Sherman (2005:23–24).
From Rock 'n' Roll High School: Sherman, Craig (July 2001). "Take Three: classic Corman film, examined". ArtsEditor. Retrieved January 15, 2007.

Reference named "New World":

From Candy Stripe Nurses: Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 66
From Hollywood Boulevard (1976 film): Koetting, Christopher T. (2009). Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures. Bristol: Hemlock Books. pp. 93–95. ISBN 978-0-9557774-1-7.
From I Escaped from Devil's Island: Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 58
From Submersion of Japan: Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009. pp. 80–83.
From Piranha (1978 film): Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 146-147
From Humanoids from the Deep: Koetting, Christopher T (2009). Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. p 175-176
From Fly Me: Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 53
From Grand Theft Auto (film): Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 126-127
From Cannonball (film): Christopher T Koetting, Mind Warp!: The Fantastic True Story of Roger Corman's New World Pictures, Hemlock Books. 2009 p 104

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]