Talk:Slither (2006 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Slither (2006 film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Wrong poster

I heard that the movie poster up now is a fake, and not really the poster for the movie (at [www.jamesgunn.com]). That being the case, does anyone object if I delete it? Sensorium 20:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard about that too. However, since the movie will open in less than two months' time, let's wait until the real film poster is unveiled before replacing it. *drew 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, drew - Sensorium 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The new, correct poster is now upSensorium 22:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeerks?

Anyone else see any similarity to the creatures in this film and the Yeerks from Animorphs? 12:18 March 27 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler?

Shouldn't the image of Grant in his mutated state count as a spoiler?

YES! Wasn't very happy to see it since I'm taking in the film tomorrow... Saint Mahone 21:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it IS all over the TV trailers and such, so it'd be hard to miss. You could minimize spoilers by avoiding specifically mentioning it's Grant, but still... Joylock

Reception?

The accusation that Slither "the film suffered from outspoken negative word-of-mouth from the internet message board community" seems rather impossible to prove. I've scanned the 'net and see no indication that any word of mouth of sufficient caliber adversely affected the outcome of Slither's opening weekend. It simply was up against Ice Age 2, which did far better than anyone had anticipated. The writeup gives a supposition of a conspiracy that is simply not here. If the original poster has evidence to the contrary that needs to be given to support the accusation. Otherwise it should be removed. ZachsMind 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... sort of. If you are saying that it must be removed completely then I disagree. I think if he can show that there were people who attempted to "sink" the movie then it should stay. However that will be hard to prove and I don't recall ever hearing about that. --MateoP 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The movie's advance reviews from Horrorchannel.com, Variety, Bloody Disgusting, etc, were all GREAT, and the reception on message boards has been the usual (see Slither message boards at Internet Movie Database, which is the usual positive/negative mix, and at chud.com, bloody-disgusting.com, horrorchannel.com, etc., where the message boards are positively glowing about the movie). So I find this theory either bogus or an idea posted by a couple of individuals whose thoughts aren't really notable enough to post on Wikipedia - no more so than any of the other hundred thousand people who have posted their opinions of Slither on the Internet. I've deleted the section, unless someone else could cite real sources and explain the notability. Sensorium 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Toohey's Beer

I deleted the following: "In Australia, viewers complained that the slugs in Slither were rip-offs of the tongue in the Tooheys Extra Light Beer tv advertisement." I did this for the following reasons - 1. I couldn't find a single reference of such an assertion on the Interner; if there were news stories or the like, please let us know. 2. Most people who know the film by now know that the slugs were based on the slugs in David Cronenberg's "They Came From Within", by the writer/director's own claim, which was in 1974. That, along with that the writer/director is an American who likely hasn't seen the commercials, makes it not noteworthy enough to be here on this page. Sensorium 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In the ad a sleeping guy's tongue crawls out of his mouth and rolls it's way to a bottle of beer across the street, it then drags the bottle back and the guy wakes up wondering why he has an unopened bottle of beer in his mouth. It was quite a good ad but it's unlikely that the creatures were stolen from it. Jargon 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Deus Ex Machina

I removed a mention of the end of Slither being a deus ex machina, as it is not true. In a discussion with Kylie (who has the mind of Grant Grant), Bill Pardy discovers that by killing Grant he'll kill all of his external minds. Pardy than destroys the Grant monster himself (no one coming to save him as would happen in a Deus Ex Machina) and everyone dies. Sensorium 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed it again. The fact that all the "zombies" are connected with one mind is a major plot point. It would be unexpected if they did not all die at the end of the film. Deus ex machina is a term used for a very unexpected resolution such as a "waking-up" ending and does not apply here. 1st September 2006

As a film student, I must strongly disagree. Even though a character in the film says the zombies are connected to Grant Grant, nobody ever says in the movie that killing Grant Grant will return everyone back to normal. It's meant to be a big surprise at the end of the film. While it is a pleasant surprise, it is also deux ex machina. This isn't meant as a knock against the film. Raiders of the Lost Ark also uses the deux ex machina approach. So does Psycho. Sometime this film flaw is a technique used to jolt the audience. Even James Gunn admits to using the deux ex machina device in "Slither" in his blog. You can't argue with the director of the film.

The Budget

Anonymous user 207.155.65.94 has continuously been changing the budget from 15 million to 25 million. Please state source for doing so. The sources for the 15 million are the web site of the director - http://www.jamesgunn.com/updates.html#7-17-06, where he states that an article in the Hollywood Reporter was mistaken on the budget, and the actual budget is 15 million, as well as the web site Box Office Mojo - http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=slither.htm, one of the more respected outlets on such things, which also puts it at 15 million, and even the budget on IMDB is 15.5 million. So, unless you have a very good source (and, frankly, I think it would be difficult to find a better source than the director himself), please refrain from this back and forth. Sensorium 20:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And again the budget keeps getting reverted, citing an article that is a mirrored version of a Hollywood Reporter article refuted above. Please check your sources. Sensorium 19:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

user Sensorium is trying to intentionally mislead readers by leaving out important info about the film

(a) box office mojo doesn't list marketing costs. just production costs for the film

(B) using JAMESGUNN.com as the source for the budget presents a conflict of interest. just because he objects to an independent outlet reporting on the TRUE BUDGET for this film doesn't make him right. unless the journalist retracts that article, then the facts are consistent with the budget costs.

15 million plus the marketing costs included in that article. On jamesgunn.com, even the filmmaker concedes that the article with the 29.5 box office figure might be including marketing costs.

I do not mean to mislead anyone, and am sorry you think so. This page and the James Gunn page have been two of my pet projects and I am sad that it's come to this back and forth.

However - Under "BUDGET" on ALL Wikipedia movie pages, the number referred to is the production budget. With that in mind, I am guessing that we have at least the budget part of this article worked out in a way that we both agree - the production budget of the film (i.e. "budget") should be listed as 15 million?

Also, you can sign your comments here by using 4 ~ in a row. Sensorium 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, please don't let your bias turn wiki into a james gunn promotional site. James gunn already has sites for this.

please STOP saying that SLITHER is the best horror film in 10 years or stuff like that. This is HIGHLY subjective. It is NOT fact. your opinion has no place on Wiki, period.

The budget IS 29.5 million. I confirmed this in an email to an admin over at boxofficemojo.com. If you'd like, then I will create a section on Slither page that seperates marketing costs from Budget costs. Sound good? :) But the total cost for this film WAS 29.5. I'm a film critic for a living. I work at EW. I have backed up my claims with sources. IMDB and BOX OFFICE MOJO leave out marketing cost. So, no, the article didn't get it wrong. James gunn is just angry at the negative press.

Plus, Shiver comparison is absurd. The point of that trivia is to suggest that NIGHT OF THE CREEPS and SLITHER are strikingly similar. Yes, SHIVERS inspired JAmes Gunn in certain scenes for that movie. So, ergo, make that a seperate trivia section. Don't include Shivers with Night of the Creeps, confusing.Guerillafilm 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

a) Budget, under budget in the film credits, always means production costs. This is the third time I've said that. So it's fifteen million. Fair?

b) I'm not saying it's the best horror film in ten years and never did. I said it was the most well-reviewed horror film in ten years and backed it up. That's all. This isn't POV, it's just what it is. Again, if you have a better way of saying it, I'm open (please read my comments to you below - I'm trying not to jump back and forth here).

c) Admittedly, I hurried the NOTC/Shivers thing. A lot of the stuff in that section wasn't true - no one becomes a mindless zombie in SLither (they actually think quite well, and can speak, like in Shivers), and they don't become a giant mass at the end of NOTC like they do at the end of Slither. But if you want to work on that section in a fair way, I'd love it.

Thanks Sensorium 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you've changed the budget. Now I'm going to an administrator. I've told you numerous times what budget means, that it means production costs. It means that in every film entry in Wikipedia, so why are you wanting to change it here?

I've also backed up the "most well-reviewed" horror film thing numerous times. It is not POV. Sensorium 20:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I changed it back to "15 Million" budget, because this budget section in every other movie page on Wikipedia refers to the production budget, as it should here. It's important Wiki is consistent. Also, I do believe the director's comments are applicable - most budgets used are from studios and directors. Also, directors and stars are always considered appropriate resources on Wiki for information. The same should apply here. If you feel like changing again, we should go into mediation. Sensorium 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For comments on the rest of the changes, please see below in the Sensorium section - Sensorium 20:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed recently inserted section from article

I have removed this section from the article because it appears to be largely WP:OR - can some sources be cited for this critism ? Also naming things/characters in tribute to earlier films in hardly unique. Megapixie 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The movie was poorly received by the general public and, as a result, the film became the one of the biggest box office bombs of 2006. The budget was approximately $15 million dollars not including marketing costs (which were an additional $15-$20 million dollars). The movie opened with an embarrassing $3,880,270 in its opening weekend and the film only grossed around $12,199,880 worldwide, making it one of the most poorly received horror films of the last ten years. James Gunn has been no stranger to controversy and accusations began to swirl around the movie itself. In particular, fans complained that "Slither" plagarized its story and creature-design from another similarly themed movie "Night of the Creeps". Both films feature alien worms that enter through the mouth, transforming its hosts into zombie worm incubators. More striking similarities between both films fueled the controversy. In particular, an injoke within "Slither" was that almost every street sign or building name had some sort of reference to a place or character from an existing horror "classic" or horror director. Likewise, "Night of the Creeps" also made references to famous classic horror films, also naming its characters after famous horror film icons. The similarities couldn't be denied and the controversy casted a shadow over the film in the minds of die-hard horror movie fans. The incredibly poor box office performance of "Slither", combined with the film's controversy, proved to be an embarrassing episode for the otherwise talented director who found earllier success with his screenplays for the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and the live-action "Scooby Doo" movies.

Guerillafilm

The term "box office bomb" is not appropriate for a film that made back more than 50% of its budget (the 29.5 budget number is incorrect - the 15 million is closer to the truth). Saying it was "critically acclaimed" and "most well-reviewed" are not POV: they are facts. The truth is the movie has by far the highest percentage of positive reviews of any horror movie on Rotten Tomatoes since SCREAM. The movies are listed under genre and you can see them as such. If you want to reword a thing or two (I removed "extremely" at your suggestion), that's fine. But what you're currently doing is vandalism, and will not be tolerated by Wikipedia.

Please see above under "Budget" for the reasoning behind the budget changes. The site you are listing is not trustworthy; Box Office Mojo, Imdb, and the director himself all list the same amount.

In addition, separating the "reaction" into "public" and "critical" reaction in the way you did is nonsensical. Public reaction is not the same as box office.

Please continue the discussion here until this is resolved. Sensorium 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sensorium

Sensorium... you are trying to intentionally mislead readers by leaving out important info about the film. (a) box office mojo doesn't list marketing costs. just production costs for the film (B) using JAMESGUNN.com as the source for the budget presents a conflict of interest. just because he objects to an independent outlet reporting on the TRUE BUDGET for this film doesn't make him right. unless the journalist retracts that article, then the facts are consistent with the budget costs. Plus James Gunn is too biased a source to rely upon. After all, he made the movie!

15 million plus the marketing costs included in that article. On jamesgunn.com, even the filmmaker concedes that the article with the 29.5 box office figure might be including marketing costs.

I challenge to explain your position to me. IMDB and BOX OFFICE MOJO do not typical list marketing costs. Movies don't market themselves. Yet they are part of the FINAL budget. That's why we rely upon OTHER film journalists for this info. Hollywood Reporter is a very reputable source, period. Unless you find a retraction, or an article that directly disagrees with them, then you are using YOUR SPECULATION against THAT ARTICLE'S conclusions. Again, using James Gunn's opinion (whereby he confesses that "maybe they were including marketing costs") and then throwing in your OWN speculation doesn't challenge FACT as it is presented by an article.

Also, I'm concerned about your obvious corporate spin about all of this.

You constantly say things like "Best horror film in 10 years" and stuff like "greatly acclaimed". This is all SUBJECTIVE and has no place in Wiki. Its opinion.

FACT: Slither was a box office failure. Several articles and sources back this up.

FACT: Slither was well received by critics. But it also received 2 thumbs down from Ebert and Roeper and lukewarm reception from other major critics like leading NY critic Owen Gleiberman. So the film is far from the Greatest horror film in 10 years.

Again, this is opinion and commericial promotion. Not fact. Please refer to wikipedia rules if you have any doubt about this.

Sensorium here -- Please, GF, I have listed above - BUDGET on ALL of the movie pages MEANS production budget. That's all it ever means. Marketing costs are not included EVER. So, again, I am guessing that we are at least agreed on that?

I never said "Best horror film in 10 years" or "greatly acclaimed". I said "most well-reviewed" and "critically acclaimed" and gave statistical information that backs that up. Statistically, it HAS a higher percentage of positive ratings than any American horror film in ten years. If you can think of a less POV way of putting that that I'm all for it.

If you want to change "box office disappointment" to "box office failure," I'm fine with that.

I'm not trying to work against you here. I want to create a good article. If that's what you want, then let's go for it together. Sensorium 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Guerillafilm - so I worked on your changes, kept some, and added some back. I hope this is a good compromise for you. I stated in a more neutral way the Rotten Tomatoes score - the fact that it's so high in relationship to other films of its genre needs to be pointed out.

I also added back the rest of the film directors who praised Slither, which I also think is notable. I don't know why you deleted, but if you want to discuss, or have some better way you think this could be stated, go for it.

THe high score on Rottentomatoes.com is NOT notable because the movie was not a cultural phenomena. Slither is not an important film in the genre. Slither is not an influencial film like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. So mentioning the high score is a form of "promotion" which violates wiki rules.

You also didn't back up with sources the content about Hooper, Landis, Roth. Until you do that, then I will delete those changes.

Are you sure you are not a James Gunn fan trying to use Wiki to create a James Gunn fan page? it's getting annoying. Wiki isn't for celebrity fanpages. it for FACTS.

---

I see your point on the movie directors stuff - I'll get citations and put them in later.

I removed one thing from the NOTC section, because the monsters don't become a mass at the end of NOTC.

I put the Rotten Tomatoes thing back in, as it conforms to Wikipedia standards in that it is extremely notable. Whether or not SLither is a cultural phenomena isn't really notable. I don't agree that people can make their own conclusions. They should know what the score means in relation to other films. Sensorium 20:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

removed 84% AGAIN because it is NOT notable and completely misleading. for instance, the horror film DESCENT currently in theaters has a high rotten tomatoes rating. And BLAIR WITCH PROJECT has a high 84% rating. Slither is NOT as influencial or notable as BLAIR WITCH. it misleads the readers into thinking that SLITHER is like another revolutionary horror film like BLAIR WITCH. the poor box office is proof that it isn't. too many horror films have 84% or higher rating on ROTTENTOMATOES.COM over the last ten years. just because James Gunn is bragging about his film, doesn't make his bravado FACT.Guerillafilm 20:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I'll change it to five years, but that's that. No other American horror film in the past five years has higher than an 83% rating. That IS notable, and factual. It doesn't say anything about influence or its value as a phenomena, it only says what it is. It seems like we are now okay with things as they are, except for including the context of the Rotten Tomatoes score. That's good. I don't want to have to go into mediation over this one final bit, and would rather work this out with you, but if that is the only way that is the only way. However, it will absolutely be decided that it's notable and worthy of inclusion, and going into mediation is a waste of both of our time. Sensorium 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Slither is NOT unique in its high score. THE DESCENT also has a high score of 83%. Mentioning this is a form of spinning. Wiki is not the place for a James Gunn fan page. Unless you plan to include ALL films with high ratings over at Rottentomatoes.com, then you are misleading the reader into thinking this film is some 'achievement' or 'groundbreaking film'. It is not. That is the problem with your statement. it is just another horror film, like THE DESCENT or HOSTEL.

please stop using WIKI as a fanpage for celebrities. Guerillafilm 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will leave the picture alone. but you need to update the information on the picture or it might get deleted by someone else.

Incidentally, the other person who posted the old man James Gunn picture WAS vandalizing the site with that picture. thanks for changing it to something more appropriate.

incidentally, let's try to get along. I'm in film journalism. I'm simply applying my experience to this page, nothing more. I'm just trying to be fair. Guerillafilm 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, GF, I agree. I really want to get along. And the page is getting better in some ways. However, I completely disagree that the 84% Rotten Tomatoes rating doesn't belong here. It is unique - there are almost no American horror films with a rating higher than 75% over the past few years. There were many articles written on the postive reviews and how unique that was, including your own magazine, EW, and USA Today. I think that would lend credence to its notability. It is the only thing left hanging over our heads here, because we just won't agree. So I'm filing a form for mediation to come in and settle this. If you want to agree or rewrite in some way to be acceptable, I'm open. However, just because we don't agree doesn't mean we need to dislike one another and get mean here or anywhere else. Sensorium 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I reworded the Rotten Tomatoes section to be more explanatory. Hopefully this is to Guerillafilms' liking. If it is not, please go to the mediation page filed and sign the mediation form at the bottom - they'll come in to help settle this. Thanks - Sensorium 21:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your statement lacks proper citations. Please list sources that calls Slither UNIQUE or GROUNDBREAKING on this talk page BEFORE changing Slither page again. You're abusing WIKI. THis isn't a fan site for James Gunn. Guerillafilm 21:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) --

GF - I didn't say it was groundbreaking. I did say Unique, but I think that's more than justified considering - a) It has the highest percentage of RT ratings of any American horror film in the past few years (and is only one of a handful of horror films EVER to be above 80% - maybe one a year at most). And - b) Articles were written on the critical reaction to Slither - not only the ones mentioned (EW, USA Today, HR), but many web site articles as well. Again, if you disagree with what I just wrote please sign the mediation form. I'm sure it can be worked out. Sensorium 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

speculation is no place on WIKI. and you should know that by now. you can't INFERE based upon something as specious as a rottentomatoes.com rating.

and your other citations need to be specific. you are reaching here. if these so-called articles exist, then you need to provide DIRECT LINKS to them. that is how WIKI works. And I can guarantee you that any mediation will agree with this. but, then again, I think you already know this. Guerillafilm 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try to create a more NEUTRAL SOUNDING phrase about the 84% rottentomatoes.com rating.

Guerillafilm 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the Hollywood Reporter article you keep citing calls it "one of the best reviewed horror movies in years." As so many articles mentioned this same thing, it should be in this article as well. Also, I think you should still sign the mediation form. I think then you could quit accusing me of making this a fan page. The film is notable for its reviews and you're sort of fighting a losing battle here. Sensorium 22:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

GF - How can you call my writing POV when you say "quickly overshadowed". I'm starting to think you don't understand Wikipedia. Many things which you are complaining against are commonplace. Many things you do are just not acceptable under Wiki standards and guidelines. Why are you not signing the mediation form? Sensorium 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are just a James Gunn fan trying to manipulate Wikipedia into a celebrity fan page.

EDIT: Cronenberg may be an influence on James Gunn. But then place that UNDER the James Gunn page. Cronenberg doesn't make comedies, ever. Guerillafilm 22:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Your personal attacks aren't appreciated and are going to be reported. I stictly follow Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my ability. You are not doing that in your changes.

And a Trivia page on a web site that states the director's inspiration for a film is appropriate for that page. Period.

The section on Rotten Tomatoes should be mediated. Please sign the mediation page. If you are really interested in well-done articles then, obviously, involving a third party in this is the way to go.

Sensorium 22:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Not true AT ALL.

Look, I will agree to keep your most recent change. I like the MORE NEUTRAL SOUNDING edit you just did. So I think we are in agreement.

I will also keep your David Cronenberg addition. But I will include Lloyd Kaufman since James Gunn mentored under Mr. Kaufman for his first major film.

Happy?

And, no, mediation for something as absurd as this ISN'T warranted. We are not speaking about WMDs. We can work this out like big boys. It's only a movie, after all.

Happy? Friends??

Good. Guerillafilm 22:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not at all in agreement with the current change. I am simply awaiting mediation, which may take a while, and I am abiding by Wiki's policy not to revert more than 3 times, which you are not. The Rotten Tomatoes score should be able to be discussed in the same way it was in dozens of articles on the film. Yet for some reason you consider the fact that it's reviews were unusual POV. My POV in the previous article is Neutral. That Slither garnered an 84% and that was the highest rating for any American horror film in five years is FACT. That articles were written on this subject is FACT.

Lloyd Kaufman does not belong under the inspirations cited by James Gunn for the film since I can find nowhere he cites Kaufman as an inspiration. You can't just make up stuff on Wikipedia (well you can, but it's not correct...)

It is also fact that it was on the Must List. Why in the world did you remove that?

If you don't want mediation, quit reverting my changes. You can't work it out and your changes don't make sense.

Sensorium 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

sir, there is NOTHING wrong with the 84% rottentomatoes.com statement as it stands.

I will put the EW Must List back since it was deleted ACCIDENTALLY. I didn't notice that it was deleted.

I have gone over to OTHER film pages like "Blair Witch" and "Silence of the Lambs". None of them are using the OPINIONATED language that you use and clearly BLAIR WITCH and SILENCE are more influencial films than SLiTHER.

Look, Wiki isn't a blog for fan opinions about art and everything else. It is a facts based page. I've been a long time fan of WIKI. I am also VERY familiar with the rules here. You are dangerously close to manipulating the James Gunn content on WIKI to match his frustrations with the media that he discusses on his blog. This isn't a PR page to deal with Gunn's disappointments in film. Wiki isn't the place for that.

It's simple. Use Wiki to state the facts. FACT: The film got an 84% favorable rating at Rottentomatoes.com. OPINION: Best horror film in 5 years? ........... Sorry, but all the links in the world won't make this fly.

I want you to respond to the following: would you like it if I wrote. Slither was one of the biggest box office disappointments for the comedy horror genre in 5 years? Yes, this could be considered true. But that would be trolling, now wouldn't it? Hence, we shouldn't go down this road.

Stick to the facts. Leave opinion to the bloggers. Wiki isn't a blog. No mediation is necessary to clear that up.

Nuff said Guerillafilm 23:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

LLOYD KAUFMAN

Are you joking? Lloyd Kaufman TAUGHT James Gunn HOW to make movies? Lloyd Kaufman has a cameo in Slither. Lloyd Kaufman created a video diary for Slither. Lloyd Kaufman WAS an inspiration for James Gunn. Lloyd was James Gunn's boss for years!

James Gunn wrote a book TITLED "All I Need to Know About Filmmaking I Learned from the Toxic Avenger with Lloyd Kaufman"

That's a fact, sir.

Enough with your lies, sir. Sheeeesh. Guerillafilm 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

And Martin Scorsese's first job was for Roger Corman, but you don't see him stated as an influence on the Mean Streets page.

What seems to be one of the problems here is that you don't read carefully.

a) Why you keep going on about Slither being the "best movie" in however long just doesn't make sense. That's not the argument. Why do you continue to say I claimed something I didn't? The argument is that it's one of the most-well-reviewed horror movies in years. There are numerous articles and citations on it, as well as the strict numbers. It's worthy of mentioning on this page, perid. It's definitely not one of the biggest box-office disappointments in years, as bigger movies have lost much more money. But if there is a claim of such somewhere, by all means mention this.

b) Also, the David Cronenberg section mentions who Gunn states as his influences. Period. If you want to work on the trivia section connecting Gunn to Kaufman, I'm all for it. But it doesn't belong under a section where Gunn states his inspirations, because he simply doesn't do it. Does that mean he's not an inspiration? No. But you don't have the sources necessary to include it.

Sensorium 23:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

okay, I can't take this anymore. Time for me to jump in.

I have to agree with guerillafilm. Simply state the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Unless this film wins oscars or something, then save the praise for your blog.

use Occam's razor when writing on Wikipedia. Do not add more than is necessary. The film have received 84% favorable ratings. Cut it off right there. We don't need a person telling us how great that is. It becomes a form of intellectual bullying. If this is truly great, then let the fact speak for itself. Adding value statement like "best film ever" or "Best five in five years" is insecure. Are you sure that you are not simply disappointed that this film didn't do well at the box office?

I have heard James Gunn speak at screenwriting panels. He recently spoke at a screenwriting panel with the director of American Psycho at the table (Mary Harron). At that screenwriter convention, James Gunn mentioned Lloyd Kaufman as one of his influences. He also mentioned George A.Romero and Sam Raimi as influences.

My 2 cents.

Lurker4life 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Lurker. That isn't what sensorium said. he didn't say best, he said highest RT score, defined that, and backed it up with sources. Because he cited articles where it was written about, of course it can be included.

As far your seeing Gunn at a conference, it can't be included because of Wikipedia standards (first person reporting). Moper

Lurker - I DID state the facts. It received a rating of 84%, which was the highest of any American horror film in 5 years. Period. That's a fact. That in no way manipulates the data. I also added more data to make GF happy, which was then deleted in one fell swoop. Too many times. What I added was that many articles were written on the very subject of how good the reviews were, meeting Wiki's need for notability. Sensorium 23:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I didn't say that I want to include my first person account about Lloyd Kaufman.

The other poster backs up his claim about Lloyd by pointing out that James Gunn wrote a book about his experiences working for Troma titled All I Need to Know about Filmmaking I Learned from the Toxic Avenger. Clearly Lloyd Kaufman is an influence on the filmmaker.

No one is disputing that Slither earned an 84% RT rating. But that score is not the highest. The other user pointed out that the current movie "the Descent" is practically tied with Slither. It is nonsense to suggest that because the film was made by someone British that somehow this doesn't count. The movie was acquired by an American film company and it is being distributed by American theaters. So Slither's high score is not that unique. Shaun of the Dead was also extremely successful with critics in America. RT doesn't track movies based upon foreign origins. For RT, all films are created equal. And Wiki exists for all things, American in origin or not.

Sensorium, you are not backing up your wild statements with sources. Posting a link to www.ew.com or www.usatoday.com isn't a citation. You need to post a citation to an article in a major publication. Otherwise you are in direct violation of Wikipedia rules.

Again, I reviewed some of your "contributions". You will make a bold statement about how Slither is the best movie in years and then simply say that USATODAY and EW agree with you. Please post links to direct articles that quote some of things you are saying.

My 2 cents

Lurker4life 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Lurker4life 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lurker - Interesting how you deleted my talk from your page where I wondered if you were the same person as GF.

Here is why it seems suspect and why it's possible that GF and Lurker are the same person:

A second person suddenly shows up on Wikipedia at the exat moment another one disappears during a dispute, with all the same thoughts, making the same mistakes with reading comprehension, and all the same grammatical errors.

Maybe I am wrong in asserting that Lurker and GF are the same person, but I do not believe that I am.

I never once said "Slither is the best movie in years" nor anything close, though both personas continually insist that I have. I said that it had the highest percentage of positive ratings on Rotten Tomatoes of any American film in years. Which it does. It's fact. Because it's the highest it makes it notable, but because you don't like Slither you simply keep deleting it.

Wikipedia, like the world, does divide things into categories. "American films" is different than "British films." This is why when there are world records for, say, speed skating, there is a world record for the overall fastest and then there is a record for the fastest American. This situation is no different. I didn't say it was the most well-reviewed film. I said it was the most well-reviewed American film. (Which is why the word American was in the sentence).

And 83% (the Descent), last I checked, was lower than 84%, so I don't see what it does to help your case. The Descent is an amazingly well-reviewed horror film, also one of the best reviewed in years. On the Descent Wikipedia page it says "it has received critical acclaim in the UK and USA", and I don't see you there changing that - yet when I used the defining term "critically acclaimed" to describe Slither, you deleted it both here and on the James Gunn page on a number of occasions.

Guerillafilms has just deleted essentially all of the information I just posted above. I softened it slightly to make sure I wasn't comitting "libel" (a term Guerilla misuses when he deleted this info). So that he doesn't delete it again: The above is my opinion, but it seems likely to be true.

If you'd like to report this talk section as abuse, please do. But do not delete this section again, as that would certainly be vandalism.

Sensorium 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sensorium... you are making false accusations against me. This is a form of libel. Do not accuse me of being someone else on this forum. If necessary, then I will have my editor at EW contact our attorneys and file libel charges you if and when we discover your identity with the help of wikipedia admins. Please stop any and all efforts to slander me on this forum. You are not an admin. You are not a moderator. Just because "you think" I might be someone else on this forum doesn't make it so. So this stops now. If you are having an argument with other users on this forum, then take it up with them.

I'm trying to be civil here. I already compromised on several of your edits despite the fact that I still disagree with them. But I compromised in the interest of a friendly dialogue. Now it is your turn to compromise. I will let the 84% rating stand. But I will not allow a your personal Editorial about those facts to exist on this board. In my industry we call that "yellow journalism." You want to use that fact to advance your agenda. You are being insincere when you suggest that your opinion about that figure is fact. It's still your opinion. Slither might have been well-reviewed by the critics. But it is no "Silence of the Lambs." the movie isn't a cultural phenomena. If you want to mention that many critics have favorably reviewed slithter, then I have no problem with that. But trying to suggest that Slither is the best horror film of the last 5 years is your own personal opinion. United 93 received a 90%. it is one of the best reviewed films on rottentomatoes ever. but the film failed to have a cultural impact. most people didn't see it. so trying to suggest that it is the best drama in 5 years is premature since the film is still fresh in people's memories. The same can be said for Slither. give this matter more time. if Slither is making waves a year from now during the awards season, then I'm inclined to agree with you at that point. But Rottentomatoes.com is NOT the word of god. Several major critics like Roger Ebert and Owen Gleiberman did NOT like Sliither. so it is not clear if the critical reaction is as amazing as you say. that's why we have oscars and film awards... they reward films with cultural influence. Until that happens, then you are speculating and speculation has no place on Wiki. just the facts. RT is not some up and down vote. It just tracks the consensus of critical reaction. that's all. critical reaction isn't a science like physics or geometry. art is too subjective for that. if you want to mention the high 84% RT score, then that is fine. let the reader draw their own conclusions about this. we don't need to do PR for James Gunn or Slither. period.

And for anyone else who is listening, NO, I'm not lurker. I'm only who I say I am. if someone here wants to do an IP check, then so be it.

Otherwise, get a life. Sheeeesh. Guerillafilm 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

furthermore, Rottentomatoes.com isn't some divine tool for detirmining if a movie is good or not. that's not its purpose. it's a fun website. it's not the NY times. It's the academy awards. it's a private website that tracks the consensus of movie reviews. and then the admin of that site gives his own thumbs up or down about the movie. RT doesn't fit the standards of WIKIPEDIA as far as credible sources go. AICN.COM and ROTTENTOMATOES.COM and JOBLO.COM are all private enterprises. they are NOT well established film journalist venues. again, Rottentomatoes is not in the same league of journalism of the NYTIMES. If someone wants to mention as a fact that Rottentomatoes.com gave a high rating to a film, then that is fine. But using it as PROOF that a movie MUST BE GREAT is hogwash. Rottentomatoes.com isn't proof of anything. that like using the score over at IMDB.COM to prove a movie is good or bad. Again, it is too subjective.

RT is a fun website that tracks critical reaction, hence the 'fun name' rottentomatoes.com. It is not meant to be taken as proof of a movie's greatness. So do not use this website as proof about a movie's worth or success. As a fact, it can track the percentage of positive and favorable reviews. but RT is not some litmus test for the value of a film.

Guerillafilm 04:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

GF - again, I don't know how to get it through your head. I'm not saying Slither is the Holy Grail. I'm not even saying it's good. I'm not saying because the majority of reviews were good that it's likely to be good. I'm not saying it's an important part of the horror canon.

What I'm saying is that it has the highest ratio of good to bad reviews of any American horror film in five years according to Rotten Tomatoes.com.

Do you disagree with that fact? It doesn't seem you do. It's true. You can look it up. There's a list at [1].

You seem to think that I am inferring something else from this fact. I don't. I have always and only just put that actual fact on the Slither Wikipedia page.

And you keep deleting it -- more times than allowable according to Wikipedia standards.

Sensorium 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

that is why I let the 84% rating stand. I agree with you that I was wrong to object to it. you are right to suggest that the 84% rating is fact. we should just leave it at that.

my problem is that this movie has only come out a few months ago. the awards seasons haven't arrived yet. magazines haven't yet listed their best of movie lists.

please give this matter some time before you proclaim that Slither is the best reviewed horror film in 5 years. Critics might change their mind by the year's end. And don't tell me that critics don't change their minds. when Unforgiven came out, alot of critics hated that film. then it built momentum up to oscar time and then alot of critics turned around and gave it the best reviews of the year.

it is too early to see if the critical reaction of slither will hold. alot of critics also blasted Apocalypse now when it came out. Now most critics call it the best film ever made. I don't see why this is so difficult for you. RT is not a Holy grail. so don't use it to suggest that Slither is the best horror film of the last 10-5-1 year(s). I'm a critic. and I can tell you AS A CRITIC that we critics are humans. sometimes we can get it wrong. It is too early to tell if that 84% rating on RT is accurate or not. let's see how Slither is reacted to on DVD. if critics are still praising this film, as you claim, then I'm more inclined to agree with you.

furthermore, I'm not arbitrating something silly like this. there is more important issues for wikipedia to resolve. let's be men and resolve this ourselves. I don't have time to worry about this. I thank you for the lively debate but that is the end of it for me. anything more than this is beyond petty. if you want to pursue this further, then you are wasting your time too. just accept that we have to compromise. you are not willing to compromise beyond token gestures here and there. I have given you mostly want you want. but on principle I'm not going to let you praise a film simply because you are reading too much in RT's role in the media.

I originally objected to including the RT 84% rating. But you proved me wrong about that. So I conceded that to you. Asking anything more than that is simply unreasonably. If 84% is so great, then the readership will have no problem figuring that out on their own. I don't believe in spoon feeding an audience. let the facts speak for themselves. we don't need to point out how great the RT rating is. it's condescending and it's a form of intellectual bullying. you need to learn to give more credit to your audience. otherwise you are telling people how to think.

I compromised with you on many issues today. but I'm not going to let you tell me how to think. and that is why I deleted your comment. because you are telling the reader how to interpret facts that the average reader is smart enough to interpret on their own in their own way.

thank you for the lively debate. Guerillafilm 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

There seems to be a content dispute in progress. As far as I can tell the area of dispute seems to be:

Budget: 15 million dollars production budget versus 29.5 production + US marketing + US prints budget.
Similarity to Night of the Creeps.
The value of the rotten tomatoes / metacritic movie reviews - and what we can infer from them.
Influences on the movie.

Is there anything else I have missed ?

We can go through point by point and come to an acceptable compromise in each case. It's not like this is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Does everyone agree ? Megapixie 05:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL. you are right. this isn't hamas vs. israel.

okay, I'm game. So I will start.

(A) BUDGET

I don't see the problem including the total budget. why can't we include ALL the facts? the more facts, the merrier. if the movie cost 15 million to produce and then 15 million to market, then why not print both of those facts? the person arguing against me seems to suggest that we should NOT include both set of numbers since other pages don't. but this is a fallacy. just because other movie pages don't include the marketing costs, doesn't mean we should not include them. maybe those other pages SHOULD include those costs. again, doesn't it benefit the readers to know as many facts as possible? 15 million dollars for marketing is not some insignificant fact! the wiki link for box office failures includes marketing costs. so why can't this page include those marketing costs? boxofficemojo.com and imdb only mention productions costs. so using them as a source for marketing costs isn't possible. hence that other source I used.

plus the other post challenges my hollywood reporter source by using James Gunn as his source to counter it. LOL. just because James Gunn the celebrity doesn't agree with the analysis of hollywoodreporter.com doesn't mean that James is right and the hollywood reporter is wrong. if anything, the celebrity is biased to spin this. unless the other poster can provide evidence that my source for that 29.5 million is wrong, then I don't think that Mr. Gunn's assertions about it are enough. and James gunn even says on his blog "maybe the hollywood reporter article was including marketing costs in their 29.5 million dollar price tag." So there you have it.

(B) ROTTEN TOMATOES

I don't think that we need to browbeat the reader into thinking that this is the best reviewed horror film of the last five years. For starters, this isn't true. Other films like Hostel and The Descent were also wildly popular with critics. Slither is not unique when compared to those other films. Plus a critical consensus is hard thing to measure. My problem is that the other poster, Sensorium, wants to use the 84% RT to cast praise upon this film unfairly. RT simply gives a rough idea of how critics feel about a movie at any given time.

FOR THE RECORD: I am SUPPORT recording the 84% RT rating. In fact, I encourage it.

Also I am IN SUPPORT of saying that Slither is favorably rated by the consensus of critics according to the RT critical.

However, I will OPPOSE any attempt to suggest that SLiTHER is the best horror film in 10 years (or 5 years) simply because of some arbitrary RT rating. Yes, Slither was well reviewed. Yes, many critics like Slither. But RT is not proof that SLITHER is the best horror film of the last five years. No matter how you creatively word it, you make it sound like Slither is better than every other horror film that has been released over the last five years. Is that true? Making this statement is another way of saying this movie had the greatest of cultural impact of any movie of its kind over the last 5 years. Again, Slither is no Silence of the Lambs. Slither is not creating a cultural impact the same way that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT has influenced culture. Slither simply has a high score on RT. The fact speaks for itself. We don't need to say stuff like "best horror film of the last 5 years, etc." That is opinion. Not fact. So I SUPPORT saying that "the movie is favorably reviewed according to 84% of the critics over at RT.com" But I OPPOSE infering that "SLiTHER is the best horror film in the last 5 years according to RT.com."

the movie isn't even out on DVD yet. lets see how the movie is reviewed on DVD. and lets wait a few months until the awards season. if Slither is still enjoying a great deal of favor among these critics come next year, then let's record this fact.

if Slither is forgotten a year from now, then this discussion was not necessary.

Blair Witch Project has become part of our cultural language about horror films. Let's see if Slither is having a cultural impact a year from now. If it does, then let's record this as fact on WIKI. However, it is too soon to detirmine the cultural impact of this film. For now lets let the facts speak for themselves. we don't need to interpret these facts for the reader. we don't need to tell the reader that this "84% reading means..." Similarly, we don't need to say that because of the very low box office, that the public must've HATED this movie. One could easily make that argument as well. so lets not go down that road.

(C) Night of the Creeps

I really don't care about. that was a big issue with some other users here. If you want to delete that, then be my guest. but, come to think about it, there are similarities between the two film. can't hurt to leave that in trivia. but if deleted, then I really don't care. it's an empty concern.

(D) Influences of other directors on the movie director

I can't believe the other person doesn't want to include Lloyd Kaufman as a influence on James Gunn? James Gunn wrote a book All I Need to Know about Filmmaking I Learned from the Toxic Avenger.

WIki excerpt: "The book was written by Kaufman and James Gunn; they had previously collaborated on the 1996 film Tromeo and Juliet. Gunn went on to more mainstream prominence as the writer of Dawn of the Dead (2004) and the writer-director of Slither (2006). The book was written by Gunn after having numerous long interviews with Kaufman about his life. The book is written in a darkly humorous style, and is an unusual mish-mash of personal memories, how-to-make-movies advice, and pure flights of fantasy,"

Okay, James Gunn mentored under Lloyd Kaufman. On the planned Slither DVD Lloyd Kaufman even has a video diary of the film. Again, Kaufman was Gunn's old boss and he taught Gunn how to make films while Gunn worked as a screenwriter at Troma. Kaufman and Gunn made "Tromeo and Juliet" together. Clearly Lloyd is an influence on Gunn.

I disagreed with Cronenberg as an influence on Gunn since Cronenberg doesn't make comedy. BUT I conceded this point since Gunn has referred to Cronenberg as an influence. SO I don't mind letting this stand.

However, once again, I stick to my guns that Lloyd Kaufman was an influence on James Gunn. It is silly to suggest otherwise given the mountain of evidence on the subject.

Hope this helps. ;)

Guerillafilm 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lloyd Kaufman question has a lot more to do with where it is, as Lloyd Kaufman is not considered one of the creators of the body horror genre.

Kaufman is probably an influence on Gunn, but in relationship to Slither and the body horror genre, it just isn't something that was mentioned by Gunn.

I mildly changed the reaction section which is much, much better now. I think the negative effect on the whole industry was rather overstated, and I simplified the overall structure.

Sensorium 13:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute

It is important to note that the film's marketing costs + the film's production costs make this a bigger financial disapointment that it might seem. The movie COST $15 million to make. But that doesn't mean that we should not consider the marketing costs as it affected the business of the movie. Movies don't market themselves and that $15 million dollar production cost is seperate. In addition to production costs, the film also cost another $15 million to market. Again, the production cost of $15 million excluded marketing costs. And movies need to make back both it's production and marketing costs. See box office bomb. The combo of marketing costs and production costs made this a costly disappointment. James Gunn is aware of this, despite attempts of other people to use him a source in an attempt to counter this argument.

In fact, he recently wrote that SNAKES ON A PLANE is a big disappointment when "marketing costs" are included.

www.jamesgunn.com "So yesterday SNAKES ON A PLANE made 6 million and change - if you include the Thursday night numbers, it made over 7 million. At the end of the weekend it's expected to make 18, but I won't be surprised if it's less than that. This is a pretty big disappointment considering people were expecting an opening weekend of 35-50 million at one point. The movie cost around 40, and I don't know how much marketing expenses were, but I'd have to guess at another 40."

I don't mind leaving out the marketing costs on the stats for this movie. But clearly the movie lost alot of money when marketing costs are considered. So, yes it is substantially less than the 30 million that the yahoo article pointed out. there isn't confusion about this. please don't play with the numbers to manipulate the outcome of this movie just so it doesn't look like a flop. Guerillafilm 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter how anyone 'plays' with the numbers in the article, they cannot manipulate the outcome of the film. AKAIK, WP only lists the production costs. That's for EVERY film article, right? So including only the production costs in this article can only be considered manipulative of the facts if the inclusion of production costs in every other film article is ALSO manipulative (e.g. leaving the marketing costs out of the Halloween budget, to make it seem a bigger success than it really was). But it's not manipulative, it's just the facts. The film cost x to make, and it made y in profit. Geoff B 08:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Then we list the production costs are they are in accordance with Wiki policy. But as far as analysis goes about the business of the film, then we can mention the marketing costs. The difference between Halloween and Slither is that Hallloween was a huge hit. Slither was a huge flop. Why? because the total cost of the film was 29.5 million. As a matter of formating, I don't mind using the production costs. But as long as we clarify for the reader WHY this movie was a flop, which requires us to cite the marketing costs, then it is perfectly consist with the facts. Your reasoning is flawed. By virtue of mentioning the production costs doesn't suddenly mean that Wiki has changed the reality for the dismal outcome of this film. Wiki actually DOES appreciate the affect of marketing costs on its films. Hence, the inclusion of marketing costs on the wiki article box office bomb. Hope this helpsGuerillafilm 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether the film was a hit or a flop is irrelevant, hence my Halloween example. You're saying that excluding the marketing costs from this particular article is biased, because it makes the film seem like less of a flop. But by that reasoning, leaving the marketing costs out of the Halloween article is also biased, because it makes the film seem like it made more of a profit than it really did. The total cost of the film was not 29.5 million. The total cost of the film was only 15 million. The marketing is not part of the film. Nor was Slither a 'huge' flop. Many excellent influential sci-fi films fail to make a dent at the box office, Blade Runner, Brazil, et al. Also, Slither has yet to be released on DVD. I think you need to take a step back ,as you seem to have a bee in your bonnet over this film, 'dismal', 'box office bomb', 'huge flop', etc. Geoff B 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not selling me on this.

Let's examine your reasoning.

Whether or NOT you included the marketing costs for Halloween doesn't change the fact that Halloween was a HUGE hit. The movie made so much money that it made back both the marketing costs and the production costs. IN the case of Slither, the production cost alone was !5 million. If you go to IMDB or BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM, then that is clear. But the yahoo article I provided included the marketing costs to reflect how the movie flopped mercilessly.

So leaving out the marketing costs doesn't affect the Halloween movie. Nor would it affect that new Pirates sequel (that movie made so much money). But in the case of Slither, the marketing costs, and the overall bad boxoffice, lead several media outlets to report that Slither was a huge flop.[[2]] On Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you think the statement is true or not. It is about backing up your sources with veriable sources. If Slither was a hit, then simply provide me a link from an independent sources that says that Slither was a hit. Or provide me a link that says Slither broke even. I gave you my sources. Here is another one.[3] And remember, if you do find a link, then linking to Jamesgunn.com or a blog doesn't meet with wiki rules regarding original research. Simply find an article that says Silther didn't do badly. And we'l go from there. If you can't (or won't) then my revision should stand since I am backing my contribution up with sources. and you or not. It's that simple.Guerillafilm 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to 'sell' you on anything. I'm not claiming that Slither was a hit. Just that you are constantly exaggerating how badly it did. You didn't like the film, thereforeit is a box office bomb, etc. You need to work to counter your bias. You're either not understanding my line of reasoning, or merely pretending not to. Either way, WP does not include marketing costs. My point was that it's irrelevant whether the film flopped or not. That's why I used the Halloween example. Excluding the marketing costs for Slither, according to you, is attemtping to 'manipulate the outcome of the film' (your words). But excluding the marketing costs of Halloween to make it seem like a bigger hit than it really was doesn't apply, because it made a profit. Either way, you're saying that not including the marketing costs exaggerates the performance of the film, whether its performance was bad or good. Now that is flawed reasoning. Geoff B 05:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion

This looks pretty hot; I'm here from Wikipedia:3rd opinion. What seems to be the problem? — [Mac Davis] (talk)

There are two issues at the moment, I think. One is how the Rotten Tomatoes rating of the film should be included. Slither is one of the best-reviewed American horror films in the past few years, but Guerrillafilm feels it is biased to mention this and not just the RT percentage. Sensorium put in a request for mediation, I believe. Not sure how that went. The one directly above is over Slither's box office performance, and the inclusion of the film's marketing costs in the article. WP usually only includes the production costs of the film in the article, but Guerrillafilm feels it would be biased to do that, as apparently it makes it seem like Slither was less of a flop than it really was. Geoff B 08:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In most movie articles I've read, Rotten Tomatoes, as well as performance statistics have been put in. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

I believe the discussions have arisen from the manner of their inclusion, not their inclusion alone. Geoff B 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the RT score should be included. What is it? 84%. And then we should let the reader decide if this is good or not. There are many many more films with higher ratings on RT than Slither. Slither is not notable for its high score. RT also does not work this way. It is meant to keep track of critics and their movie reviews. It is not meant to cast comparitive judgement. It says this film is fresh or not fresh. It does not say, this film is the best reviewed film in years. For instance, Slither received 2 thumbs down from Ebert and Roeper. It is arbitrary to interpret the RT score for the reader. It also violates Wiki's citation policy. If you find someone who says "this is the best reviewed film in years" then quote them and be sure to mention that, according to members of the press... etc. Don't draw conclusions, speculation, based upon 'your' reading of the facts. To be fair, state the RT score. If other sources claim that the reviews for Slither are notable, then quote them and be sure to say who you are quoting. This is a fair outcome.

Definitely the RT score should be kept in. It's notable. It's the highest RT score for any horror film in a long time. And at a 15 million dollar budget and a 8 million dollar domestic return (12 million worldwide so far), to call this movie a "Box office bomb" diminishes the term. Please check out List of US box office bombs to see the kind of movies that truly qualify for this term. It made a larger percentage of its budget back than Superman Returns or Miami Vice, or many, many other films this year. There's a lot of silly stuff on this page; undoubtedly Slither has been a divisive film, but let's keep clear heads about what's notable and what's not. 66.159.192.213 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. i suggest you refresh yourself with WK:CITATION policy. For starters, the sources and citations listed CLEARLY STATE that the film cost 29.5 million to make this film. The film cost around 15 to produce and an additional 15 to market. Plus, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the box office. That's why wikipedia has a strict policy AGAINST WK:OR and WK:nPOV. Multiple sources and citations from reputable sources have labeled this film a box office failiure including [4] and [5]. In other words, you are not allowed to edit/delete contributions when those contributions have been backed-up by multiple citations. Your paperthin attempt to spin the facts violates the purpose of wikipedia. This is not a james Gunn fan page or a Slither blog. Please limit your contributions to factual contributions. Also, since other film cites don't list the RT scores, then it is awkward to list it here. Hence, why multiple editors have removed the contribution LONG ago.Tromaintern 09:03, 29 October 2006

(UTC)

Disagree then. This is why you've been kicked off other message boards for your obsession with Slither. The 29 number was a GUESS - as stated in the original material (!), that has been widely refuted such as [www.jamesgunn.com] and [www.boxofficemojo.com], which have also explained the mistake of the VARIETY number. So quit trying to continually insert it here under different names. There are no MULTIPLE citations - there was ONE, in Variety, which was them reprinted in other sources. This is obvious from reading the material. Yes, I know, you've removed the sources under other aliases, Tromaintern. But most the people above who aren't you [and which you are many] think the RT score IS notable. It is very unusual for a horror film to score that high. Period. And there is a big difference between a "Box Office Failure" and a "Box Office Bomb." By far the vast majority of films released are Box Office Failures - they don't make their money back at the box office. A bomb is something different. As far as I'm concerned, you're a troll. Your POV treatment of this page in reading it over is obvious. Quit trying to spin it to look some other way. The truth is Slither was a box office disappointment and a critical success. Period. 66.159.192.213 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you are violating Wiki policy then I leave it to your imagination about who is "trolling." Here's a hint: it's not me.

Regardless of HOW you feel about this issue, what you are intentionally ignoring is the policy at Wiki. If you don't agree with a source, then that by itself is not cause for deleting someone else's contribution. If you don't like the contributions here, then build a consensus on the talk page for a change OR find a source that clearly states that the "29.5 was a mistake." And be sure to properly cite your sources. Celebrity blogs or fanpages and web forums are strictly prohibited by WK:CITE. Using Jamesgunn.com, as you are using here, is completely disingenuous. James Gunn is not a journalist. He is also clearly in a position of bias given that it is HIS film being negatively reviewed by journalists. If that 29.5 million price tag is truly bogus, then find a reputably source (like Variety) that claims that this is a mistake. If you can't do that, then you need to build a consensus on this talkpage or go into mediation. Getting into a revert war with me won't get you far on wiki, pal. Box office mojo does NOT list marketing costs for a film, which can cost any where from $10mil or more for a mainstream Hollywood film. The Hollywood Reporter article lists the total price (including marketing) a fact that even James Gunn conceded on his own blog. And since you are accustomed to common sense, despite your insincerity, then here is some common sense: movies don't market themselves, and yes, it costs money to market them. Just because Slither cost 15 million to PRODUCE doesn't mean that they did NOT spend money on marketing. In fact, $15 million is CHEAP compared some bigger productions. And, yes, a movie like SLiTHER must make it money back both regarding production cost AND marketing costs.

And as for this:

"This is why you've been kicked off other message boards for your obsession with Slither."

I don't visit message boards, they are a waste of time. Nice try though. Tromaintern 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously changing things here for your own purposes. It's obvious to everyone here you're a troll. Yes, you can continue to revert me. I will not be as obsessive about it as you are. I don't really care about it that much. I came to this page for info and saw some obvious misinformation, including your work, an obvious troll. You obviously and purposefully have a mental definiency which causes your obsession with a film you intensely dislike. You have a psychological problem.

You've shown the same distorted logic you're saying here in other incarnations and in messageboards.

Let's start with the 29 million budget number.

Most movie pages on Wiki have a production budget. What is meant in the industry and on Wiki by a production budget is the cost of the PRODUCTION, not the marketing. It is very simple. This is what it means on all those other pages as well. This is the same as reported on Box Offic Mojo.

Understand? This should end this right here, and you should leave the 15 number be. But you've been told this before by other people and seem to purposefully forget it. But I'll say it again....

A PRODUCTION BUDGET NUMBER DOES NOT INCLUDE MARKETING COSTS. Period. On any page. Got it?

In addition, the 29 million number is not necessarily even marking costs in addition to budget. It was an estimate as to how much it cost. Gunn wrote on his blog that it MAY BE because they thought they were including the marketing costs. But, again, you made out of that what you wanted to make out of that.

Again, Box Office Mojo lists 15 million, Gunn lists 15 million, Variety estimated 29 and the number was refuted by Gunn publicly. We have multiple sources for our number, you do not.

Your assertion that jamesgunn.com doesn't count for info is just plain silly. All over this site we take the word of directors, producers, and studios for info on Wiki. Most budget costs listed come from the studio, who notoriously under-inflate budgets in the case of large films, or over-inflate them for small films. Many come from directors and producters, just like Gunn. So if you don't think information coming from the filmmakers themselves counts for something on Wiki then you might as well wipe out 99% of everything listed outside of plot commentaries. Understand?

Also, WHY REMOVE AND DEFACE THE DEKKER MENTION, which is appropriately referenced? You continue to put that this movie was based on Night of the Creeps, when both the director of Slither and the director of Night of the Creeps (!!!) has said otherwise. If you want to delete referenced info like that, you better have a damn good reason.

You'll continue to deface this page for your own purposes, but you ought to look at at least these two things:

A) Learn what a production budget is. It's production costs, not marketing. You should know this before making any changes anywhere on Wiki, not just here. B) You can't say a movie was based on Night of the Creeps when references have been made otherwise by two directors.

66.159.192.213 12:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First rule about making lying: don't.

Second rule about lying: don't do it embarrassingly badly.

Attacking me as "mentally deficient" won't earn you friends here, anon.

BTW you are now in violation of Wikipedia's standards against personal attacks.

As far as your incorrect assertion that it is okay to cite Jamesgunn.com as a source for your arguments, I would like to direct your attention to the following WIKI POLICY:

WP:RS

===Self-published sources as secondary sources===

'Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

The James Gunn.com website is not an independently run website for purpose of reporting about Gunn. The Jamesgunn.com website is Mr.Gunn's PERSONAL WEBSITE and it also is a VANITY PUBLICATION for purpose of promoting Mr. Gunn. Hence it is not allowed. If you still have a problem with this policy, even after I have clearly spelt it out for you, then my advice is to take this up with a moderator. There is nothing wrong with presenting the views of a director AS LONG as those views are presented in the form of a reputable source or outlet. If what you are saying IS TRUE about James Gunn's assertions that his film is NOT a box office bomb, then you should have no problem finding citations or reputable news sources backing up his claim. The press has interviewed James Gunn before. Yet I couldn't find a single media outlet that quoted James about his claim that SLiTHER was not a bomb. In fact, James Gunn apparently is alone in his view and the only source I could find was his personal website. This alone adds credibility to my argument that James Gunn is spinning the negative media about his film.

As for your 'standard' about how box office budgets should (or should not) be listed, I would humbly request that you point out WHERE on wikipedia that it says that marketing costs can not be listed as part of the film's total budget. As you already know, every film is different, some films are market driven and, hence, the cost of marketing the film is as essential part of the budget for PRODUCING the film (as was the case with Snakes on a Plane). In other cases, with films like Clerks 2, marketing costs were not important since the film was independently produced and financed. On average, most mainstream Hollywood films cost no less than $25-$30 million to market. ANd that's an average. Usually it's much higher. SLiTHER was marketed for fairly cheap (around $15 million). So was Hostel ($20 million marketing). And, of course, the Dawn of the Dead remake ($25 million).

The reason WHY marketing costs are an important part of THIS budget is two-fold: (A) it is part of the reason WHY this film bombed, since the film fared SO POORLY at the box office, which is WHY it is necessary to mention it on Wikipedia since it is an important factor in the history of this film's financial failure and (B) the movie launched an intensive (albeit cheap) marketing campaign (including "make your own trailer" contests, etc) for the purpose of countering the fact the film had no major stars. So far the consensus in the press is that SLiTHER was a box office bomb/flop/failure. In fact, it was a big enough failure that Unviersal even decided to disassociate itself with James Gunn.[[6]] Since you are a big 'fan' of boxofficemojo.com, then hopefully that "reputable" source will put your mind at ease. Here it is again: [[7]] But if that's not enough, then how about EW calling this movie an "inexplicable flop".[[8]] Or how about the Hollywood reporter stating that the failure of SLiTHER was so bad that it will kill off the genre of horror comedy [[9]] If there is a dispute in the media about the success/failure of SLiTHER then you should have NO PROBLEM finding OTHER sources/citations that backup your claim.

I have three credible sources backing up my claim [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]. You hare using ONLY ONE source to refute my citation, the www.jamesgunn.com blog. And, once again, you intentionally ignore the fact that celebrity blogs, fanpages, forums are not allowed according to wiki policy. WP:RS

Your arguments so far fall into the category of speculation, solely on your part, which violate Wiki standards otherwise known as WK:OR (no original research allowed). If what you are saying is true, then simply provide reputable citations or sources backing up your claims, per wiki policy. Again, James Gunn's promotional website/blog is not allowed as a citation per wiki policy concerning citations (fanpages, blogs and forums are prohibited as citations). If SLiTHER is not a bomb, and if that distinction is important then you should easily be able to find people in th press backing up this claim (other than a desperate filmmaker trying to spin his bomb).

Since you are intentionally avoiding this valid point on my part about backing up your claims with sources, I'll spell it out for you:

Excerpt from WP:CITE:

== Why sources should be cited ==

To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
To show that your edit isn't original research.
To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

=== When you add content ===

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

My advice, pal, is that if you want to revise/delete longstanding contributions to the SLiTHER page then you need to respect Wiki policy when doing so.

If you want me to compromise with you, then try working it out on this TALK PAGE before you decided to unilaterly change content that has been accepted for months on these pages. And if we still can't agree, then you have the options of building a consensus to support your changes OR you can go into mediation with me. Again, both actions need to take place on the talk pages.

Incidentally, given your history of usercontributions (all James Gunn related) I have to wonder if you are James Gunn himself. If so, then at least have the decency to say so rather than hiding behind a dynamic IP. Your POV stance is not only transparent, but it is also undignifying.Tromaintern 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tromaintern -- It doesn't seem like you're even around anymore, but if what you say is true - "In other cases, with films like Clerks 2, marketing costs were not important since the film was independently produced and financed" - then we'll have to assume this is true of Slither as well, which was also independenly produced and financed, by Gold Circle. So, if there are no objections, I will change the budget to 15 million. Sensorium 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sensorium, I'm very much around. And this issue was already debated and resolved in the box office bomb talk pages. The consensus reached is that marketing costs are included in the final budget cost WHEN they had a direct role in causing the film to fail financially. Slither wasn't financed independently. Universal studios is hardly independent. However, Clerks 2 was financed by independent film mogul Harvey Weinstein, under his new INDEPENDENT company the Weinstein Co. Sorry, but the figure stands. Until you can provide a source that DIRECTLY disputes my many sources pointing out WHY the movie was a flop, then you are engaging in unilateral POV vandalism. Tromaintern 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tromaintern --

So what is the difference between Slither being financed bvy Gold Circle, a completely independent company, and distributed by Universal, a studio, and Clerks 2 being financed by Weinstein Company, a completely independent company, and distributed by MGM, a studio?

They are exactly the same situations. In both cases the production budgets were independently financed and the studios paid for the marketing?

Sensorium 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple. The Weinstein Co. is given free reigns on it's projects, while Gold Circle was is a 'company for hire' BY Universal. It's an arm of Universal. Weinstein CO. is simply invested/funded by MGM and Warner Bros. They have no say over what Weinstein makes. Universal gives Gold Circle it's marching orders. There are several books on the subject by Peter Biskind. If you have any doubt, simply google his name and read up on the subject. It's not that complicated.

But that's a moot point anyways.... because Clerks 2 wasn't a flop and Slither was. Clerks 2 made $10 million in the opening weekend. Slither made an abysmal $3 million. Clerks 2 made a domestic take of $26 million. Slither made only $13 million. Clerks 2 cost $5 million to make and $15 million to market. Clearly it has made a profit. Slither cost $15 million to make and another $15 million to market, for a total ticket price of $29.5 million. Clearly it lost more than half it's theatrical take. That's why it was a box office flop. Hey, if you want to argue that Slither is a success on DVD, then be my guest. At least it's breaking even on DVD. But my only concern here is accurate facts/info. Slither was a huge horror flop. It's one of the reason why that James Gunn hasn't been greenlit on other projects. Sure, he says he's writing scripts. But I have shown many independent sources say clearly report that Slither was a flop and that it hurt James Gunn's career, period. That's how wiki works. Until you can find sources other than Jamesgunn.com that 'directly' refutes my sources, then you are simply inserting your point of view into this debate. Either way, I don't see the problem here other than for James Gunn's pride/ego. [User:Tromaintern|Tromaintern]] 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

TI

I don't want to fight with you, but that's not what you said, is it? You said Clerks II was different. I'm just trying to figure out your logic here.

Despite that, I'm not saying that Slither wasn't a bomb. I'm just talking about what the budget is. If you can name 10 other films on Wikipedia where the budget is named in the film (that someone other than you put in), and that budget is a combination of marketing AND production, then I'll let the Slither budget stand. But all of the other budgets on Wikipeida are ONLY the production budget.

In addition, the fact that a film is named the best movie of the year by a reputable horror mag, as well as that it's in many top ten lists, is definitely notable (certainly as notable as Siskel and Ebert giving it two thumbs down).

Please, my friend, let's work together to make Wikipedia great. I don't want cut out your work on this page that shows Slither was a box office failure, and try to make it look otherwise. Likewise, I don't think you should cut out my work on other aspects of the piece and ONLY LEAVE the negative.

Surely, Slither was a box office disappointment. It was also an extremely well-reviewed film, and it has a lot of info to show that.

In the interest of working together, I have only included a couple of the most notable top ten lists than Slither was on, instead of five or six.

Thanks. Let's work this out.

Sensorium 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, despite what you might think of my intentions, I'm only interested in objectivity. I don't mind leaving in your contributions about Slither being the 8th highest ranked film on RT. In fact, I encourage it. Why? Because that fact IS veriable and sourced correct. So I applaud it. Also, I agree that the Ebert and Roeper thing should be moved to the bottom of the page. So we are in agreement. All in all, the article feels more balanced out. However, that said, the movie's box office is a complete different subject than the movie's critical reaction. This movie ain't winning any Oscars. The public gave this film a big thumbs down and the DVD sales were hardly considered note worthy. I'm happy for you that the movie is well-received with critics. And, again, I'm for keeping that fact untouched. Yes, the consensus in the press is that Slither was a hit amongst critics. However, the movie DID cost 29.5 million to make. What you are failing to grasp is that movie production IS NOT an exact science. With some movies, marketing is not important at all. Clerks 2 was an independent film made by Kevin Smith and, because it was a hit at Cannes, the Weinstein CO. decided to put it in theaters rather than go straight to DVD. However, a movie like Jurassic Park or Snakes on a Plane is directly tied into the marketing strategy. It's called "the franchise", which began when George Lucas made Star Wars. Franchise films like King Kong or Superman or Indiana Jones and, yes, movies like Slither are made with mass markets in mind. The marketing cost is part of the production strategy since they are trying to hype audiences up to see the film. The hype is part of the experience. That's why Snakes on a Plane was such a disappointment. They overhyped it so people didn't see the need to see the film once it was in theaters. Again, the hype, the anticipation is part of the film experience. Hype is not important for small movies like Clerks 2 since people see the film either because they are a niche fan of Kevin Smith. Arthouse indie films are made for small audiences in mind. Which is why you don't see many commericials for movies like Clerks 2. However, in the case of Slither, the movie was riding on the coattails of a successful string of zombie movies from the year before. Dawn of the Dead and Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later were all huge hits. Even Land of the Dead did okay business. The zombie film was now a moneymaking franchise film. And James Gunn wrote the script for the Dawn of the Dead remake. That's why Universal studios spent a hefty 15 million marketing price tag on the film. They also had internet contests, Troma promotional tie-ins, videogames, etc. However, what they didn't expect was that people were "all zombied out". People were tired of zombie films. Also there was a backlash among alot of horror films. Despite the critic's beliefs, alot of horror fans complained online that Slither was a bald faced ripoff of Night Of The Creeps. They also were hesistant to see a film that was written by the same guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. Also, Troma might not be the best inspiration for a movie since most Troma films since 1986 have been huge box office failures. Add to that a lot of angry purist horror fans who were still mad at James Gunn for remaking Dawn of the Dead. In the end, the public's reception of the film was unusually cold to this film. Personally, I don't care whether the film is good or not. I also don't care if the film lost money or not. I'm just interested in keeping the page objective. In the imperfect world of moviemaking, there is no easy formula for success. After all, how does one formulate successful art? You can't. Art is too unpredictable. So it is NOT easy to simply create a formula that seperates marketing costs from production costs. It's the chicken and the egg problem. Does the marketing sell the movie? Or does the movie create a good market? The answer is that it depends on the movie. Epic blockbuster films like ID4 and Wild, Wild, West rely on the hype and buildup for the movie since they are marketed like any product, even if the product is crap. Sometimes there is that rare blockbuster like Titanic or Lord of the Rings that matches the hype. And that's when a cultural phenomena happens. When it doesn't, then you have bad movies that do well, like ID4 or Silent Hill. When people get sick of these movies, then you have movies like Cutthroat Island or Slither. But maybe, if the movie finds a cult following, you get a movie like "The Thing" or "Office Space", even if the film failed at the box office. That said, maybe Slither will be a cult hit many years from now. But, in the meanwhile, it was a box office bomb that did well with critics. And, that's what this article should reflect. Hope this helps.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromaintern (talk • contribs)

Song playing in end credits.

The lyrics go something like "Baby I love you, just leave me the fuck alone..." anyone know the name of this song?

Its Baby I love you by the Yayhoos. Icseaturtles 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tromaintern/User:24.9.103.143

Tromaintern, you need to assume good faith. The edits I made were not to introduce a point of view, but to remove it, from both sides. We do not need to color the article with adjectives like "disappointing" and "profoundly", especially when they don't appear in the source provided. On the other hand, you reverted my removal of placing Ebert and Roeper in the "handful" of critics who reviewed the film poorly, and replaced the line I deleted about "overwhelmingly positive critical consensus". All of this is unnecessary (though I'm willing to overlook the "box office bomb" link). You also reverted a bunch of style edits I made, which I have now redone. I was not "violating previous consensus" or "making unilateral POV changes", I was being bold. There was no consensus, and you do not own this page. Overemphasizing either side- how poorly the film did, or how well it was reviewed- gives undue weight to that viewpoint; I was trying to correct that.

That said, the article is in a much better state now that some of the claims about the film's reception have been actually attributed to who said them. However, we can't attribute the Entertainment Weekly quote about killing off "horror-comedy" to "studio insiders"; insiders may share this opinion, but to include them we'd need to paraphrase the statement, rather than attributing one quote to all of them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I concede that profoundly should be removed. And I placed the actual quote from the article.... so hopefully that solves that dispute.

Secondly, you don't own the page either. If you noticed, I took many of your compromises into question.

FACT: Slither was a box office flop.

FACT: Slither was a critical success.

So I'm not sure that we are necessarily disagreeing here. Even though I disagree with your reasoning and intentions, I don't object to the changes you have made. I made minor revisions that I hope we can agree upon. I'm willing to drop disappointing. In its place, I put the word "only" which is pretty neutral. The other tweaks I made are unrelated to our content dispute. Hopefully we can move this article forward now. And thanks for consulting the talk page and thanks for respecting my contributions.

Yes, "only" is much better. And I don't think we are really disagreeing either, so I'm glad we can get past this. (Please do remember to sign your posts, though, it makes it much easier to tell who's saying what!}

About the EW quote, I think we might should change it to reflect it's not just something the magazine was making up, they were basing it on what studio insiders and people who worked on the film said. Maybe something like "Some studio insiders have expressed that Slither's performance may discourage future production of similar films, leading Entertainment Weekly to suggest the film 'may have killed off horror comedy for the near future'" (or whatever the real quote is). Or maybe we don't even need EW's direct quote, we can just summarize what the insiders actually said in the article. Studio execs shying away from making similar films because of this one's poor performance carries more weight than some magazine predicting that "horror comedy" may be "killed off".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. BUT I don't think it's necessary. We already state that this is analysis according to studio insiders. And I don't think we should place our own worded interpretation. The direct quote is always preferred by Wiki standards. Otherwise, we are violating wiki rules over NPOV and Original research. Again, we made it clear it's a quote. We attributed the quote to studio insiders. And we placed a link to the citation. At this point, we should leave the interpretation of these facts to the reader. Any other changes would be convulted and wordy. Let's keep it tidy and to the point. My 2 cents. -- Anon user.

Same problems after disengaging

As I said several months ago, the quote from Entertainment Weekly doesn't carry any weight, it's just a magazine's interpretation of what studio execs said. As such, it's more appropriate to explain what the execs did say rather than include an unattributed quote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is addressing this concern, rather they are relying on blind reverting. I'm not optimistic that dispute resolution will work, but it looks like our only option here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Geoff B 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

A revert war has been going on as to how to word the section on this film's box office performance, and reactions to it.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

I'll start: The issue of the day is over two versions of the "Box office" section, this one and this one. One the surface it's not a huge difference; the former version says that "some studio insiders have expressed that Slither's performance may discourage future production of similar films", while the latter says "Consequently, Slither's poor box office performance may have ’killed off the horror-comedy genre for the near future.’ The latter seems all right, but it doesn't say who the quote is from. It's actually from an Entertainment Weekly article, in which the author was paraphrasing the feelings of some studio insiders. My point here is, there's no reason to quote Entertainment Weekly on this, especially if we're not going to say who said it. The magazine doesn't carry any weight - it's what the studio insiders expressed that counts, and that's represented in the former version of the page.

This sounds simple enough, but, I don't expect this RfC will get very far. Tromaintern is very difficult to deal with. He is hostile to this film and its director, James Gunn, and uses whatever means he can to include as much negative material as possible about them. This is much more serious at the Gunn article, because it's a BLP, but it's also easier to deal with - the page can be protected, and slanderous material removed on sight. Here, however, is a different matter.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, Tromaintern doesn't like Slither or Gunn (this edit, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slither_%282006_film%29&diff=147981516&oldid=143350736 with the rather disingenuous edit summary) so when you try to keep to NPOV he accuses you of being a fan of Slither, of Gunn, or of being Gunn himself. Geoff B 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. No... actually your attempt to turn these wiki pages into your own personal James Gunn fanpage is transparently 'clear'. And the problem with BOTH your reasoning is that it falls outside the realm of Wiki. When it comes to sources about ANYTHING, all that matters is that the source is verifiable. When you say the magazine doesn't carry any weight, that is your OWN interpretation. Just because you don't approve of how Entertainment Weekly constructed the article, that doesn't mean it is not a veriafiable article according to Wiki. Entertainment Weekly, The NYTIMES, Reuters are all perfectly acceptable according to Wiki. The bottom line is that YOU simply don't like the article because it doesn't say what YOU want it to say. Please point out WHERE according to Wiki rules/policies that it says that a source has be backed up BY sources WITHIN the source itself? The way YOU need to counter this is by finding a source that counters mine. The consensus is clear about Slither: the film was a major box office disappointment, it was a crushing defeat for the company that made the film AND the film has a chilling effect on the industry. Besides the Entertainment Weekly quote, I can also provide THREE other sources that clearly state that SLITHER was bad news for comedy/horror genre. Why? Because according to the sources, comedy/horror has a poor track record historically.

Again, to recap, all Wiki requires is that a statement or analysis present in an article have a veriable source. In other words, any press is fine. If the Entertainment Weekly source is SO dubious, then please explain WHY they have not retracted it? Or why haven't any other press outlets/sources challenged this claim?

Again, the problem isn't the source. The source follows the litmus test of Wiki. If you want to change it, then you should have no problem finding a source that counters this claim. OR if the source is dubious then please produce evidence (again something in the press) that the Entertainment Weekly article is UNTRUE.

The REAL problem here is that YOU are clearly violating Wiki policy that prohibits WIKIPEDIA ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What YOU are trying to say is that your analysis and interpretation of events somehow outweighs a source. Sorry... but it don't. That's why the rule against WIKIPEDIA ORIGINAL RESEARCH was created. Even if ALL press sources were wrong about a single event, then they still carry more weight than your analysis on an event. In other words, no matter how right you are, you still cannot change an article if it was properly sourced. If you disagree with a source, then produce a counter source to challenge that claim. Thus, in any given article, you can say that "according to some, Slither has killed off the comedy/horror genre" but others have suggested that "Slither has actually helped the comedy/horror genre." BUT the problem for YOU is that you won't find any sources that says the latter BECAUSE the consensus in the press is that SLITHER was a box office bomb that has damaged both the industry and the people involved within it.

SO... let's be honest here. YOu are accusing me of vitoral against Gunn. That's your right. But it is also my right to point out that YOU are simply spinning anything and everything negative about Gunn into something it's not. So continue with your little PR campaign to shield your celebrity fandom. But keep in mind that you are not the first person to violate WK:OR for silly personal reasons. This happens with the Fox news pages all the time. And thankfully WIKI is on the side of objectivity in these disputes. In other words, Wikipedia has not one but two pages listing "box office bombs". Your PC objection to those terminology are your own. But in the world of wiki, the consensus in the press is against you on this one, as well as Wiki policy. SO continue to waste everyone's time with your insecurity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromaintern (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the quote is unattributed (ie, it doesn't say that it comes from Entertainment Weekly, it just states ominously that the film "might have killed off the genre"), and that the speculation of an entertainment magazine don't carry as much weight as what the studio insiders actually say. Do you disagree? It's perfectly acceptable to paraphrase a source, or else wikipedia would be a huge quote farm, providing quotations without context.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this makes a difference, but the coverage isn't by Entertainment Weekly. Yahoo! Entertainment just copied the coverage from The Hollywood Reporter, found here. I don't have much time this morning to evaluate the situation, but just wanted to provide this citation if it'll change anyone's perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks; I've replaced the original citation with that one, as well as made the language less POV. Let's see if this satisfies both parties. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Geoff B 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That does make a difference, the Hollywood Reporter is a much more credible source for this type of thing than EW. And at least it attributes the quote to who said it originally. Looks all right to me now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling the film a box office disappointment/bomb is not POV. Not when the consensus in the press, culture and public is that this film is a box office disappointment. Since when is it Wiki's job to spin negative outcomes regarding a film's history? What's next?? Do we carefully reword Hitler's wiki page to say that he's not "a mass murderer" to say he was just a "cranky despot with a manslaughter addiction."

The bottom line is that NO ONE other than a few fans of James Gunn (you) has disputed that this film is a box office disappointment/bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.195.220 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I've reverted your last change, because 1) the references cited in the intro only draw similarities between those films - we go with what the cite says; 2) the pic of the director isn't something generally done in film articles here; 3) calling it a "box office bomb" - unsourced - is unnecessary weight, when we already have the prominent statement, from the producer no less, that it was a "crushing disappointment." What more is needed? Lastly, and to pre-empt any accusations that it's just fans of the film and director contesting all this, I can tell you that I thought the film was pretty rubbish. A "crushing disappointment" in fact. However, I am interested in helping to make any article I come across the best it possibly can be. No matter what I may personally feel about the subject. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No more is needed, the current version is much, much better than it was. No one disputes that the film was a box office disappointment; that is still addressed, but without the POV and selective negative language. Tromaintern seems to be the only one who disagrees.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullian. You don't own this page. Furthermore, please cite SOMEWHERE where YOU are the judge and jury about what wiki page should stand. You are already in violation of WIKI page ownership standards, 3 revert rules, NPOV editing and WIKI:OR standards. Box office bomb/failure is not a negative term, not when Wikipedia has two articles on the subject itself. Add to that the FACT that the press is CALLING this film a box office BOMB as a matter of fact. The content you are censoring/reverting has been well-sourced, it was built by a consensus of editors in history's past. And you are using MEAT PUPPETRY to enforce your unilateral POV agenda on this page and the other James Gunn page. Again, you are not the law when it comes to Wiki. And just because you don't agree with the sources used to back up this article, doesn't mean they should stay. Please keep your 'hippie' politically correct values to yourself and respect the objective standards used to forge wiki articles. Even that goes for your phony meatpuppet accounts insincerely backing up your claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromaintern (talk • contribs) 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tromaintern, your remarks are not civil and uncalled for. I suggest stepping away from the discussion if you are going to break out a diatribe like that. Also, for the most neutral approach, a film's box office performance should be presented neutrally, then commentary on the film's performance, including references about it being a "box office bomb", can be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tromaintern, no-one is putting a rosy picture on anything; read the current version and no-one can be in any doubt that it failed at the BO. I also resent the implication that I, and others who have just thrashed this out, are Cuchullain's meatpuppets. ~~Best regards~~, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

To dispute Troamintern's claim of meat puppets, the topic was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#RfC to bring the issue to the community, of which we are members. We were willing to provide independent opinions on the issue, and it does not assume good faith that we were specifically summoned to back the opposing editor. If you would like to discuss this civilly, Tromaintern, I would suggest retracting your comments to see if we cannot revisit this topic to reach a better understanding of how to portray a film's box office performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the original authors of this article way back when. I don't see the problem here. No one said the movie sucks. The article was balanced until James Gunn fans started fighting back. The article mentions that the movie received critical praise (positive) but the movie was a box office bomb (negative). And both are true, and backed up by sources. Please stop violating the consensus agreed to upon by editors' in the past. I don't fully agree with Tromaintern. Nor do I approve of his lack of good faith with other editor. But the point of view agenda by other editors (fans of James Gunn) is not appropriate either. contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogabadaga (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what you think is the problem with the wording? Information should be presented neutrally, as what I've attempted in my recent revision, especially mentioning its ranking for its opening weekend. This information, followed up by the independent commentary, shows that the film did not perform well. If "box office bomb" is to be used, specific sources need to be cited to refer to it as such. Not all films will be box office bombs in the clearest sense -- they can recover from foreign territories or from DVD sales, the latter being a more popular path. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This film was a box office bomb in the clearest of senses. ANd I will certain provide multiple sources to that effect. Happy? The facts in this case are not disputed. In my next edit I will provide more sources to back up this claim. But the sources already used should've been sufficient.Ogabadaga (talk • contrib) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They are used, after the neutral presentation of facts regarding the film's box office performance. Why is this not acceptable? I had tried to present neutrally how the film performed at the box office. Let me try another revision to see if it is agreeable, with the term box office bomb used, and you can implement the sources that you have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think now, Ogabadaga? The paragraph seems to declare its poor box office performance from various sources well enough, following the neutral presentation of its performance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. :) And I appreciate the effort of all editors making the goal of this article 'objectivity.' My only hope is that my humble tweaks will be respected by other -ahem- editors. Other than that, this compromise is fine in my book.Ogabadaga (talk • contribs) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what the edit page says: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." :) Glad we could find some balance here; it depends on if Tromaintern is still resistant to the matter despite the amendments by the parties involved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, both Tromaintern and Cuchullain need to chill out and stop engaging in their petty POV edit wars. This new revision is much tighter, and was arrived at by consensus. This should satisfy the demands and standards of wikipedia. Both Tromaintern and Cuchullain need to respect this consensus unless they wish to violate rules prohibiting page ownership behavior and pov vandalism. As long as my humble tweaks are respected, then I will leave this article alone for the time being. Well done, everyone. :) —Ogabadaga (talk • contribs) • contribs)

Meh, I'm kewl with this. Whether you call it a theatrical flop or box office bomb, that's all the same for me. As long as this article is balanced, then I'm cool. Count me in. I'll support this new revision. That should be enough of an consensus to satisfy Cuchullame who made it clear that he enthusiastically supports wikipedia policy. Nice. Tromaintern 01:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to be told that insults are not the way to get your way, and they are certainly not the way to improve an encyclopedia article. I don't know how else to say this, but it's ironic that after Tromaintern calls several established and thoroughly unrelated editors "meat puppets", the only one who agrees with his opinion is the new user ogabadaga, whose edits almost entirely consist of adding negative material about this film and its director to Wikipedia, much after his fashion. He has made it clear he has no interest in furthering the discourse, but only in insulting other into getting his own way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. Geoff B 08:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will, but verifiable material based upon consensus amongst editors Erik, Liquidfinale and myself now stand. The box office office failure aspect of this article is an important part of the film's history and it has been backed up with sources in a way that is balanced and direct. Their is nothing negative about it. You just happen to be a big James Gunn fan and you simply don't like what the article now says. That's not reason enough to remove it. The edit stands.Ogabadaga 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This user has been blocked as a sock of Tromaintern.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so that appears taken care of. I'm under the impression that no one besides Tromaintern socks object to the changes made by us "meat puppets", can we consider this resolved? I'm not thrilled about the "box office bomb" thing being in there, but that may just be due to who introduced it. I'll happily bow to consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; my edits were to find a middle ground between our perspective and Tromaintern/Ogabadaga's perspective. Considering his deception, I must retract the concessions I made. I've removed the EW citation and pipe-linked "box office bomb" with "significantly less" (as the article's terminology agrees with this sentence). Does this change help? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Educate moi. Why's this a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearedhallmonitor (talk • contribs) 22:48, September 23, 2007

There was an editor who believed that the film needed to be more clearly identified as a failure at the box office, despite existing content. After some discussion and edits, a middle ground was established to mention the film's "theatrical flop" later in the article, following the neutral presentation of statistics regarding its performance. However, seeing that the editor was deceptive in using sockpuppets, this presented concession was basically retracted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it have anything to do with the page?; Reads better the other way; should be kept clear to the reader; saying "substantially less" doesn't explain whether picture's performance ultimately good or bad for the film; too watered down; not open for interpretative reading; reader is left wondering if film was a success or not; never imply anything; fan of original revision.Fearedhallmonitor 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The nature of the business is to make money, and to do that you have to make more money than it cost to produce your film (generally the idea is that you have to make about 3 times as much in gross product because of all the costs). Saying "substantially less than its budget" clearly indicates that it failed at the box office without using overly negative words like "flop". Wikipedia is not here to "interpret" things for other people, but it is here to keep a neutral point of view. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

interesting point>> so we should include all perspectives and let reader decideFearedhallmonitor 03:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea behind neutral point of view, that we present all view points. That's why I tend to dislike name calling and prefer to just show statistical evidence, in this case it would be showing what we can verify to be the budget and what we can verify to be what the film made. The number speak for themselves, and we can assume that people are smart enough to realize that if you spend more money than you get back, then you lost on that venture. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moi remedied statement by attributing quote to actual source/|\origin; this avoids name calling & includes analysis + term "theatrical flop" without allowing negative connation\also noticed wikipedia has list of box office bombs>> links included to those professionally authored pages should dispel any doubt that term utilized by this article is name calling. Thanks for the feedback und civil discourseFearedhallmonitor 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of this editor. Their edit history, especially prior to yesterday, closely resembles that of Tromaintern, with very similar goals towards articles related to James Gunn.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; instead of becoming snippy, Y not join moi and other toward making a good article. k? ciao. Fearedhallmonitor 07:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I disagree. The editor may share some similar tastes with Tromaintern, but it is apparent from the edit history that his/her style is somewhat different to Tromaintern's. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx> With respect to all editors, lets work together, refining the best article ever. No hard feelings Cuchullain; i understand you are looking out for Wikipedia's best interest. W/that in mind, lets proceed upon the merits. howa's that sound mate? Cheers.Fearedhallmonitor 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ogabadaga. This account edits the same (frequently minor) articles in the same ways, makes claims about "censorship" like the others, not to mention that he came out of the blue to re-introduce the same line added by Tromaintern.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison

Let's focus on discussing the two versions of the paragraph in the making.

Paragraph #1

Slither debuted in the United States and Canada on March 31 2006 in 1,945 theaters. In its opening weekend, the film grossed only $3,880,270 and ranked #8 at the U.S. and Canadian box office.^[1] Slither grossed a low $7,802,450 in its theatrical run in the United States and Canada.^[2] Slither also underperformed in France, grossing $236,261 from 150 screens.^[3] The film ultimately grossed $4,279,936 in territories outside the United States and Canada for a worldwide gross of $12,082,386.^[2] Its box office performance was substantially less than its total budget of $29.5 million, including marketing costs. Paul Brooks, president of Slither's production company, Gold Circle Films, said the company was "crushingly disappointed" by the haul.^[1] The Hollywood Reporter speculated that Slither's performance "might have killed off the horror-comedy genre for the near future."^[1]

Paragraph #2

Slither debuted in the United States and Canada on March 31 2006 in 1,945 theaters. In its opening weekend, the film grossed only $3,880,270 and ranked #8 at the U.S. and Canadian box office.^[1] Slither grossed a low $7,802,450 in its theatrical run in the United States and Canada.^[2] Slither also underperformed in France, grossing $236,261 from 150 screens.^[4] The film ultimately grossed $4,279,936 in territories outside the United States and Canada for a worldwide gross of $12,082,386.^[2] Its box office performance was substantially less than its total budget of $29.5 million, including marketing costs, with Entertainment Weekly labeling the film a "theatrical flop".^[5] Paul Brooks, president of Slither's production company, Gold Circle Films, said the company was "crushingly disappointed" by the haul.^[1] The Hollywood Reporter speculated that Slither's performance "might have killed off the horror-comedy genre for the near future."^[1]

Note: Bold indicates addition to paragraph.

Comments

Like I told Fearedhallmonitor before, "I just thought that the previous version was more concise without lacking information -- when I read both revisions, I still come away with the impression that it was a failure at the box office. Why not make do with the minimal content?" Basically, is there a problem with reading #1 that the extra content in #2 is needed? In both cases, it's still reflected that the film was not fiscally successful at the box office. If there is significant coverage about Slither's box office performance, I think it should be explored. This is an example, but that would not be considered a reliable source -- Cinematical doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. It's more akin to a movie blog. More articles like The Hollywood Reporter would be helpful if they can explore the nature of the film's performance rather than just a brief label in the citation of a DVD review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:54, 24

I agree. I have in fact looked for something over the last hour, but if Slither is mentioned at all in the "big" publications, it's generally as a sidenote (for example, the only real mention of its performance in Variety is a line in an article about Ice Age 2). No real analyses then. As for the differences between the above two revisions, personally I prefer the first one, though to be completely honest, the second doesn't seem overly POV to me and is acceptable. I think the box office bomb article is a poor one however: POV, with no real definition of terms, and its examples are arbitrary and suspicious (Troma is placed prominently, over much more notable flops such as Heaven's Gate. Also two mentions for Slither?). In short, I wouldn't be too concerned about either version, as long as box office bomb isn't linked to. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

to clarify, Entertainment Weekly, not cinematical, is the source used. big difference. however, here's an easy way to clear this up>> in addition to the picture's poor performance is the reaction by the press to the film. the press was very eager to condemn the film's box office and was extremely harsh in it's criticism of the film's box office. the news about this film was that the film did well with critics but did surprisingly poor business. whether the press was right or wrong in its reaction to the film, this is part of the films history; i.e. the press's consistent and direct criticism of the film as a box office bomb/flop/disappointment. to exclude this information from the article is to leave out important history about this picture. take for instance the Don Imus incident. in addition to making controversial remarks about blacks, the press was harsh and direct against Imus. whether they were right or wrong to do is not material>> the press's reaction against Imus is part of the history regarding this media figure>> the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all relevant information, history und information about an event/person/place. it is best to include all relevant information and then let the reader decide for themselve. leaving out valid, well documented, vefiable information does a disservice to the reader>> Slither box office figures are relevant; so is the reaction by the press, which uniformally categorized this film as box office flop>> inclusive information such as this doesn't negate the article's objectivity, it simply provides additionally history about the film>> watering down this fact simply casts judgement on how the press reported on the film and leaves the reader confused about how the film was received. there is no reason to inject our point of view on the subject>> the solution is simple--> Include all veriable relevant info (A) the films fact and figures (B) how the press and public reacted to the film (i.e. the film's box office, it's perceived financial failure by the press, the press's willingness to condemn the film's box office repeatedly, the critical praise of the film) and (C) the synopsis of the film's plot und characters und actors. thanx for reassuring me this is not a personal matter. CiaoFearedhallmonitor 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

given that the content is veriable by enough sources, I would like to see the addition stand. there is no reason to exclude this information. Cinematical didn't say this, entertainment weekly did.>> several wikipedia articles use the terminology box office flop; to change it here suggests that the countless articles that use the term are also errored. as the other editors pointed out: it also suggests that the 2 wikipedia article listing box office bombs shouldn't exist. we are really splitting hairs here. the problem with reading #1 is that it fails to make clear that the press casted judgement on this film. the way the press reacts to a film is a part of film's history. the press historically casts judgement by calling a film a success or failure, a hit or a flop. the public anxiously awaits to hear from the press if a film was a hit or not. to not include this veriable information seems to be born out of a fear that it is inappropriate somehow. I would like to see all relevant information and perspectives included, und all history about an event. it doesn't hurt the article to keep this addition, as Liquidfinale points out.

in summary, there is enough editors like myself, in this camp, that like to see the box office term used. the other 2 article on the subject (the list and page on box office bombs) und the consistent und appropriate usage of the term in countless articles w/o dispute (i.e. grindhouse, snakes on a plane, etc.) suggests that editors in the wikipedia community also expect this terminology to be used when veriable.>> for those reasons, in the spirit of a compromise, i would like it to stay to reflect there's und mine desire to see this information included when appropriate. thanx for a spirited debate. cheersFearedhallmonitor 14:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the issue with EW is that it's only a passing mention of the film's box office performance. It's not explored closely by the press, based on what Liquidfinale and I have tried to find. Scale seems relevant here -- it wasn't an extreme loss in profit. I'm trying to find some figures for its DVD sales. Also, though, there is this interesting bit here: "Another case of a distributor claiming to simply be a gun for hire, Slither crawled to $3.9 million at 1,945 venues. A spokesman for Universal Pictures stressed that they released the horror comedy as part of a deal with Gold Circle Films, which financed Slither as well as past movies White Noise and The Wedding Date. Though horror has been hot lately, the sub-genre of horror comedy has always been a difficult sell, populated by box office disappointments like Eight Legged Freaks and Tremors." The distributor trying to be hands-off of the film would be relevant information to mention. I'll keep looking for something that has context, as that makes discussion more objective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thankfully, it would appear we are splitting hairs here, sensing an air of indifference. the latter info might be interesting to include;> however, I would disagree that the film wasn't an extreme loss in profit, the movie only earned 3mil in tickets in its opening weekend and lost more than 50% in the following weeks. a loss of 15 mil, even in the film world, is not a small matter. my suggestion is that if the film indeed earned its money back, then there should be a source calling this film a "hit on DVD" or a relevant article backing up the claim. failing to find such sources leaves to speculation the picture's financial future. yet, the articles thus far have the following to say about the film's business, labeling a big bust as such-->

"Slither Mega-Meltdown at the Weekend Box Office"

"Slither suffered a decidedly chilly reception."

"...Gold Circle Films, which financed Slither as well as past movies White Noise and The Wedding Date. Though horror has been hot lately, the sub-genre of horror comedy has always been a difficult sell, populated by box office disappointments like Eight Legged Freaks and Tremors." (suggests Slither is to be included in this category of disappointments)

"'Slither' leaves gloomy trail at the box office."

"Slither was an inexplicable theatrical flop."

i have yet to find press/sources to counter this claim. in fairness, i believe sources/press should be used to counter sources. to re-iterate i have yet to find a single article saying the film will or has made its money back. as the latter indicates, however, there are a deluge of sources/press refering to film as a financial failure. however if anyone finds a source to the contrary, i would be in favor of including it in the article as a counter-point. thanx again for the spirited dialogue mates. cheersFearedhallmonitor 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, no-one is disputing that the film flopped. And the article reflects this. But it would be over-egging the pudding were the section to be populated with needless quotes from publications which say so with little else in the way of comment. To put things in perspective, take a look at the "box office performance" sections for films which were hits. V for Vendetta, for example, which is a Featured Article: "As of December 2006 V for Vendetta had grossed (USD) $70,511,035 in the United States and $62,000,000 elsewhere, for a worldwide gross of $132,511,035. The film led the United States box office on its opening day, taking in an estimated $8,742,504 and remained the number one film for the remainder of the weekend, taking in an estimated $25,642,340. Its closest rival, Failure to Launch, took in $15,604,892. The film debuted at number one in the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan. Despite taking place in the UK, the film did not reach number one at the UK box office on opening weekend; instead, The Pink Panther took the number one spot. V for Vendetta also opened in 56 IMAX theaters in North America, grossing $1.36 million during the opening three days." And that's all it says, because there has been no real analysis of its performance. Far more time is spent on the critical reaction, which is the right thing to do. Other films, which did amazingly well at the box office, breaking records for fun (such as Lord of the Rings: FotR and Star Wars), have invited more in-depth analysis of their performance, and their articles reflect this. As Erik says, there has been no such sustained analysis in notable publications of Slither's performance, beyond a fleeting comment here and there that it flopped. If there was, I would have no hesitation in recommending its inclusion. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

this is a slippery slope fallacy. just because the film isn't the biggest flop ever, doesn't mean it's not a flop. one veriable source is enough to back this up, and the source from EW calls this film a "theatrical flop." I don't think adding a single sentence quoting a magazine is 'overkill'. also if no one is disputing the film flopped, then there should be no reason not include it. the argument you are proposing also is laced with red-herring fallacies since the V for Vendetta example doesn't address the fact that the press spent alot of time calling this film a dud/|flop/|bomb. I've listed enough examples. with all due respect you are arguing over sematics. one veriable source calling this film a "theatrical flop" is more than sufficient. the rest of the press simply backs this up, sustains it, by commenting on the film's negative financial performance. the fact that no one has provided citations countering this claim says alot on this matter. the above examples listed are far more than simple fleeting comments. by omitting the "theatrical flop" quote in favor of vague interpretative paraphasing, the article violates wikipedia's policy against original research. your analysis simply does not outweigh a veriable source. and if you take issue with this article using the box office bomb term, then you should be spending equal time fixing other articles that use it.thanx for the spirited debate.Fearedhallmonitor 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article, as it stands right now, does include the "theatrical flop" quote, and I have no real beef with that. My personal preference is to leave it out, but while I can't speak for the others engaged in this debate, I have no intention of removing it. My comments were directed at any potential future attempts to dwell on the film's performance more than is usual for a film article. I don't even have a particular issue with "box office bomb" other than the fact that the Wikipedia article for that term itself is a poor one. If it were a well-written, well researched piece, I would be OK with the "theatrical flop" quote wikilinked to it. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erik and Liquid, obviously. The "theatrical flop" bit is overkill, especially considering that the same exact information is transmitted in the concise version, just without the rhetoric. The only one who thinks otherwise is a suspected sock of the guy who introduced it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the fact you engage in name-calling, even if you feel justified, doesn't distract the merits of an argument. you are engaging in point of view war. i find it interesting that this is the only page listing box office bombs that you take issue with. apparently it doesn't bother you that many other wikipedia pages also use this term frequently and w/o conflict. the fact that you haven't spent any time on those other pages fixing them says alot. it has nothing to do with the fact you are fan of this film, though, right? nahhhhhh... smile a little more sir. life's good.Fearedhallmonitor 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited very many articles on films, as well as other things, both things I like and things I don't like. This is the only film article I've come across where an editor has gone to such lengths to ramrod his ideosyncratic opinion into it, so I've spent much more time on it than I'd like to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that if Fearedhallmoniter is the only editor who wants this "flop" stuff included, assuming he's really not another Tromaintern sock, the material should be removed if the other editors have a problem with it. I do, Erik has expressed his doubts, and so has Liquidfinale. The article already conveys the film's box office perfomance without the quotefarming and overlinking.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion? What shall we do here?--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i was under the impression this already was resolved. erik's compromise, und wording, seemed to satisfy all's needs with the least amount of conflict whilst maintaining economic vocabulary und an abundance of history with a balanced, neutrality in mind. the only doubts expressed was over the use of the word/term box office bomb. that was addressed und removed, with erik's compromise resolving this in a fair, rational manner that satisfies both Liquidfinale, Erik himself, und moi. sounds like this is the consensus. und w/ a lack of conflict from disruptive editors, this should leave the matter mostly closed. seems like others should return to maintaining/updating other parts of the article, with a renewed goal of moving forward.Fearedhallmonitor 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

loving the new article

with all the fuss over negativity and the like, I actually like this new revision by Erik. Bear in mind, the new version reads far more negative than anyone ever dreamed it would be. and it still mentions the film's "poor performance", which was all that I cared about. at any rate, i'm a happy camper as long as this new version by Erik stands. awesome. cheers, mates. thanx for giving me what I wanted. I can rest in peace now. later.Fearedhallmonitor 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Any issue with others of the new content? I made this contribution because I believe that it's a substantial fact in regard to the box office performance, as opposed to mere throwaway reiterations of information already there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no objection from moi at all. you did a wonderful job. i plan to support your version of the article. the new content is the perfect compromise. thank you for your hard work.Fearedhallmonitor 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than Cuntulame's complaints, the box office bomb contribution wouldn't be an issue. That's my issue. No reason to leave it out. Peace out. Tromaintern 02:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very clever. It amazes me how much this... individual has been angered by this very minor film and its director. I like to think that outside of Wikipedia his life doesn't revolve around slandering James Gunn, but around here it sure seems to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

While I can understand the need to remove a trivia section, there is NO reason to remove the film references section since (a) this film was heavily influenced by a gamult of films (with the director's admission) and (b) the film was a direct homage to the horror comedy films of the 1980s. Strangely, I question the motive of deleting the film reference section if the only 'real' issue here was the trivia section.Fearedhallmonitor 20:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading it, I find it likely that the references section was removed because of the original research; some of it reads like a trivia section in all but name. However, the two properly-cited pieces of information should remain, either expanded upon in a renamed Influences section or worked into the main article. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still trivia, even under the new name and it's almost all original research as well. Some of it could potentially be incorporated into the main article, though I think the the bullet format isn't optimal for this sort of thing, see Wikipedia:Embedded_list. However, it should only remain if it's sourced and actually important. I removed the more trivial unsourced lines, I'll leave the rest for now so it can be sourced and put elsewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably all that needs to be done is to clean it up and remove the bullet format. It should read fine with some tweaking since the film homages played an important role in the genesis of this film.Fearedhallmonitor 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I did some rewriting, it looks passable to me now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not influenced by Night of the Creeps

Reference link #2 http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/4340

Interview with James Gunn:

Q: A lot of what I’m hearing about Slither is that it’s reminiscent of Night of the Creeps.

JG: Yeah, people keep bringing up Night of the Creeps, for me, I’m just sick of the basic PG-13 horror, I’m sick with the same horror movies coming out again and again. Hollywood does the same thing, when a horror movie comes out and does well, which is great, like Scream came out then there were a million Screams, Dawn of the Dead there were a million Dawn of the Deads, The Grudge comes out there’s a million of those. I wanted to do something that was complete different, I wanted to do something that was complete extreme, that had a lot of heart, but was humorous that harkened back to the old body horror films of the eighties. The Cronenberg movies like the Brood, It Came From Within, Videodrome, The Thing, Carpenters film, Re-Animator, all these great films with that gristly, gory prosthetic effects just doesn’t happen anymore today. I don’t want to say it’s too serious, but in some ways too boring, too slick, trying not to be in your face. So I wanted to do something that was over the top and extreme, that still had great actors, with a great cast with Michael Rooker, Nathan Fillion, and Elizabeth Banks, and Gregg Henry, I’m really excited.

Reference link #3 http://www.genrebusters.com/film/interview_jamesgunn.htm

Interview with James Gunn

DD: Homage was paid to many films in SLITHER, especially to Cronenberg's SHIVERS. I saw you as a "deejay" here, mixing, looping and sampling bits and pieces from other films. Were these moments of "sampling" conscious, or were they just deeply imbedded in your psyche because of your love of genre cinema?

JG: The sampling was conscious, unconscious, and, in some cases, just synchronistic. I consciously used Shivers, The Blob, The Thing, The Fly, Re-Animator, and some others. Unconsciously, there are elements of Nightmare on Elm Street and a couple other things. Synchronistically -- well, I never saw Night of the Creeps until after we shot the movie, and I never saw Society until after I wrote the script, and I definitely have stuff in common with both those films.

The director of the film clearly says in interviews on 2 seperate websites, that are not personal and says that he was not influenced by Night of the Creeps. Opposed to one link that is not available anymore and two others that are film reviews from film/DVD blogs.

So I think having "It also bears a number of narrative similarities with Fred Decker's cult classic Night of the Creeps." Is enough to have in regards to it. 76.241.123.38 (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point, but this revert warring must stop. Also, please consider that the other version contains sources that indicate the film was inspired by Night of the Creeps, and that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm sure this can be resolved here but the edit warring is not kosher. Also, please explain the altering of the article's format.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The altering comes from half of the Background and production section just being a trivial comparison of Night of the Creeps and Slither. Which is why I then put the influences in the lead of the article, instead of having a pointless two sentence section.

And I still don't see how a DVD Talk review trumps what the director himself has said on many separate occasions, including the two interviews I have provided. Is the director not a reliable enough source of information in regards to what influenced him when making his movie? 76.241.123.38 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, the director himself is not a reliable enough source. The reason is because the filter that wikipedia uses is "verifiability" of sources. Also notability is satisfied since enough sources and public chatter about this comparison makes the contribution noteworthy enough to mention, even if the director disagrees with the assertion. In other words, it is important information that the reader deserves since it is part of the history of this film even if it ultimately may or may not be truth. It doesn't matter because your argument is also logically flawed. It's called an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. Here's a funny example: Vanilla Ice. His song Ice Ice Baby rips off a music track from a David Bowie song. But Vanilla Ice repeatedly says on many occasions that he did not rip off Bowie. So because of that, we don't include it?lol Also, O.J. Simpson swears that he did not kill his wife. He was also found not guilty in a court of law. Does that mean we do not include information about the continuing controversy surrounding his possible role in the murder? Many people think he's lying. As for Night of the Creeps, there is a lot of press/veriable sources that back up this assertion. Verifiability has been established, not to mention what appears to be a long standing consensus of other editors who want the Night of the Creeps info to be included.

There is an easy compromise here, but you won't be happy with it. You are welcome to 'include' veriable, sourced information about the director's denial of this sourced fact. All you are establishing is that the director denied this connection. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also include the other sourced info. They are not mutually exclusive and they can both exist on the same page. Another problem with your argument is that there is a consensus amonst many horror fans that James Gunn is lying about this silly controversy. James Gunn is an admitted horror fan and brags about seeing several upon several obscure and popular cult horror films. But he claims he never saw or heard of Night of the Creeps until after finishing Slither. Most horror film fans have a hard time believing this. There is really too many similarities between Night Of The Creeps and Slither for this to be true. Slither even has the same ending of Night of the Creeps but James Gunn changed the pet at the end from a dog to a cat. It's dumb for any of us to be arguing about this and the solution is to simply include an objective quote from the director denying the connection with this movie and to leave the other contributions alone and unaltered. But doing this will only draw more attention to this potentially embarrassing episode of James Gunn. It's like drawing attention to the time some student cheated on a test. It's not necessary here but if it stops the edit war then I'm in favor of including James Gunn's sourced statement that denies the Night of the Creeps influence.ToobinMichael (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's why there was the inclusion of "It also bears a number of narrative similarities with Fred Decker's cult classic Night of the Creeps." I figured that was enough instead of having a trivial section of comparisons, which aren't even all that accurate. The background and production section has no information what so ever about the production or background of film, it's just like I said a trivial comparison that isn't all that accurate.

I don't see what was wrong with how this was.

Slither is a 2006 horror-comedy film by Universal, written and directed by James Gunn, and starring Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Michael Rooker, Gregg Henry, Tania Saulnier and Jenna Fischer, and was produced by Paul Brooks and Eric Newman. Slither was James Gunn's directorial debut, and was influenced by classic alien invasion films such as The Thing, The Blob and Shivers.[2][3][4] It also bears a number of narrative similarities with Fred Decker's cult classic Night of the Creeps.

Gunn was said to be influenced by the wave of graphically violent horror B-movies of the 1970s and 1980s, largely created by such directors as John Carpenter, Lloyd Kaufman, David Cronenberg and Stuart Gordon. Slither also pays homage to the studio Troma Films, where Gunn began his career. Troma co-founder Lloyd Kaufman has a cameo as a "Sad Drunk", and one scene includes a clip from the Troma film The Toxic Avenger.76.205.92.215 (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

K, you are missing the point here. Don't change what is there. But if you want to ADD a sentence that says/quotes James Gunn disagrees about the Night of the Creeps connection, that I am in favor of this INCLUSION. The problem is that you want to eliminate others contributions by replacing it with that obscure sentence. The problem is that several veriable sources are already supporting the original contributions that you seemingly want to change for personal reasons. That is not necessary here and would violate consensus. If you want to add something about James Gunn's feelings on the matter, then go for it. Just don't hurt the other contributions by trying to advance your own at their expense. The rest of the paragraph is fine. You can add your contribution without changing the rest of the paragraph. Anything less than that is a bald faced attempt to advance your point of view agenda in violation of wikipedia policy. Don't do that, please. ToobinMichael (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missing what I'm saying, the production or background section has neither the film. it has two sentences on the influences that would easy fit in the lead of the article. The rest is just a trivial comparison and last I check wikipedia frowns upon trivia sections (and not an all that accurate one either). And I didn't change anything for personal reasons, I changed it to be factual. I figured (stupidly apparently) that the contributors would take actual facts from a director over a movie review from some random blog.

What if it went like this "It also bears a number of narrative similarities with Fred Decker's cult classic Night of the Creeps. Mainly that both have slugs that enter through the mouth and turn people into zombies." Would that be better?76.241.74.195 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, as it is essentially original research. ToobinMichael is correct, we can include that Gunn has indicated he wasn't influenced by Night of the Creeps but that doesn't override other reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But all that is said in reference to Night of the Creeps is "Slither was James Gunn's directorial debut, and was influenced by classic alien invasion films such as The Thing and Night of the Creeps." I don't see what the problem is in having it say "classic horror films such as The Thing, The Blob and Shivers" things he's said in interviews that are reliable and adding "narrative similarities" line. That doesn't override anything to me, the references are still being kept from the DVD reviews.

And if original research is unacceptable then why is the background and production section still allowed on?

"Both films feature plagues of small parasitic worms which come to Earth in a meteorite. In both films the worms enter people via their mouths and transform their hosts into zombies. During the climax of each film, the heroes use flammable gas as a weapon, creating an explosion which finally destroys the alien menace. At the end of both films, a small surviving piece of the alien attaches itself to a domestic pet."

In addition to being to inaccurate, there is no citation for it so wouldn't that be considered original research?76.244.3.17 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it is original research and so I have removed it. However, the background and production section can be expanded with sources so it ought to be left in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This should prove to be a good compromise for what is a silly edit war in the first place. I've cleaned it up too so that we can take advantage of the sourced information that nicely expands upon that section without introducing trivial information. Hopefully this edit war is now at its end.ToobinMichael (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Night of the Creeps Again

Here's your consensus. I'm in favor of including James Gunn's sourced statement that denies the Night of the Creeps influence.ToobinMichael (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"That is unacceptable, as it is essentially original research. ToobinMichael is correct, we can include that Gunn has indicated he wasn't influenced by Night of the Creeps but that doesn't override other reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 22:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)"

That is exactly what is on the page. It denies the Night of the Creeps stuff, but doesn't override the sources.76.205.67.87 (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your sources supporting this claim are dubious at best. They don't support your claim. After reading the sources, I will propose a compromise that doesn't read like a point of view violation. Don't revert until then. It's against wiki ettiquette and not in sync with the original consensus.65.100.89.131 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There nothing dubious about any of the sources, they are as reliable as any other reference on the page. And there's nothing point of view about it, it does exactly what was agreed upon, points out that Gunn himself has said about not being influenced by Night of the Creeps and doesn't override the other cites.76.205.67.87 (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Let's examine your so-called "sources"

Source 5 mentions NOTHING about NOTC.

Sources 6 doesn't mention Gunn's objection to the NOTC connection. In fact, the only mention about NOTC from Gunn was this: "Yeah, people keep bringing up Night of the Creeps, for me, I’m just sick of the basic PG-13 horror, I’m sick with the same horror movies coming out again and again."

Doesn't sound like a denial to me.

And source 7 from Genrebusters.com talks about conscious and unconscious influences from films that he may or may not remember seeing. Yet at the end of the 'brief' discussion of NOTC we have Gunn admitting, "I definitely have stuff in common with both those films [NOTC and another film called Society]."

Sorry, but facts are facts.65.100.89.131 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please proposes changes on talkpage before experimenting with article. It's rude and makes it appear that you have an agenda. To answer your question, no, your contribution is clumsy and reads like original research.65.100.89.131 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And the full genrebusters quote says "well, I never saw Night of the Creeps until after we shot the movie, and I never saw Society until after I wrote the script, and I definitely have stuff in common with both those films." So if he hadn't seen it until after he finished the movie, how could he have been influenced by it?

And here's a cite where he says "Is SLiTHER a remake of NIGHT OF THE CREEPS?

No. There are a lot of similarities, to be sure, but I never saw the film until after I was done shooting SLiTHER. However, Fred Dekker and I were both influenced by many of the same works -- SHIVERS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, and THE BLOB in particular."[13] And another one where he says he only saw after finishing filming.[14]

What is wrong with this? That seems to strike a good balance.

though many reviewers claimed that Night of the Creeps was an influence on Slither, Gunn has stated that while there are a few things in common with both films he only saw Night of the Creeps after he finished filming and that David Cronenberg's Shivers and The Brood were the two biggest influence on the story in Slither along with the manga Uzumaki by Junji Ito. 76.205.67.87 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with this. I guess it took you getting caught in a bald faced attempt to insert your point of view into this article for you to finally get it. This compromises is fine. Now get a life and stop getting into edit wars.65.100.89.131 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You were just as POV with you "Slither is a ripoff" comment, so don't get on a high horse about this. I was trying to be factual, Gunn has said he wasn't influenced by NotC.76.205.67.87 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are engaging in an edit war. The quote stays in, everything else stays out. 65.100.89.131 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just added another quote and replaced the blue quotes with block quotes because they have been deprecated. What's wrong with that? Does this quote piss you off so much?:

"Yes. I used some elements from Shivers as I did from many horror films to make my film, but I never saw Night of the Creeps. Dekker has said he liked Slither a lot and he knows I didn't see his film before I made mine and he's cool with it, but I took a lot of elements from a lot of films to make Slither"76.205.67.87 (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So what? I showed you a list of other sources where he admits the "unconscious" influences of this film, amongst others. The problem is that Gunn is a "biased" source. And I couldn't find a direct quote from Dekker where he says as much. Gunn could also be lying to protect his career. Just because O.J. Simpson denies killing his wife, doesn't make it true.lol Seriously, stop obsessing about this.65.100.89.131 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You want a Dekker quote, here it is. [15]

"Dekker himself is quick to dispel rumors of copycatting, mostly because he feels NIGHT OF THE CREEPS wasn’t that novel to begin with. ”I don’t believe there’s anything particularly original about NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, except maybe the tone,” he tells Fango. “In terms of story elements, I was ripping off everything from PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE to ALIEN to Romero’s DEAD films—even John Hughes comedies! So as far as I’m concerned, James Gunn is simply continuing a hallowed tradition."

"Besides, he’s been a victim of this argument before—in regard to MONSTER SQUAD, which he scripted with LETHAL WEAPON creator Shane Black. The same-titled NBC kids’ show starred Fred Grandy (Gopher on THE LOVE BOAT), who solved crimes with the help of Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster and the Mummy. The series ran from 1976-1977, and although the series spawned a merchandising line (including a now-collectible boardgame), its short life doubtless saw it overlooked by many potential fans—including Dekker. “It’s funny—Gunn claims he never saw CREEPS before he made SLITHER, and I believe him,“ Dekker assures, ”because I never even heard of the MONSTER SQUAD TV show until years after I made the movie! As for the rights to the title, there was never an issue, so I have to assume somebody was asleep at the wheel.”76.205.67.87 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

K, read it.lol And you still don't get it. You really are obsessing over his, aren't you? This wasn't the controversy you are making it out to be. And this is a minor footnote on the film's history. Dekker's 'opinion' on this is immaterial, just like Gunn's. What wikipedia reports about are the history of an event and the sourced facts that support that history.

FACT: alot of moviegoers and critics were part of a consensus who believes (right or wrong) that this film borrowed elements from Night Of The Creeps. It's a minor controversy, and that's it. No charges are being made and everything you are pointing out are interpretative.

INCLUDING your original research not only introduces bias into the article BUT is counter-productive. It draws attention to this is a way that is not only going against your intentions but is NOT part of the significant history of this event. All we can say in a neutral biased fashion is that there is controversy over this and the filmmaker is aware of it. Anything else interjects a point of view that is outside the bounds of Wikipedia and violates standards of objectivity. If you want to argue this, then do it on a message film amonst horror fans. Don't do it here.65.100.89.131 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No I get it, and it was agreed upon earlier that there should be something that points out that Gunn has said that he wasn't influenced by Night of the Creeps. You had a problem with it, and I tried to make it seem less and less "POV". And I would have figured with the last two quotes that indicated he wasn't influenced by Night of the Creeps and didn't override other reliable sources was fine.

Seriuously is having these two little quotes that big of a problem? The second one he even admits to similarities. You didn't seem to have a problem with it before, even going so far as to add to the James Gunn page, so what is the deal with you changing it now? Is it out of spite?

"Yes. I used some elements from Shivers as I did from many horror films to make my film, but I never saw Night of the Creeps. Dekker has said he liked Slither a lot and he knows I didn't see his film before I made mine and he's cool with it, but I took a lot of elements from a lot of films to make Slither."

In response to the Night of the Creeps controversy, Gunn further stated:

"Synchronistically -- well, I never saw Night of the Creeps until after we shot the movie, and I never saw Society until after I wrote the script, and I definitely have stuff in common with both those films."

76.205.67.87 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not willing to have a substantial dialogue, so there is no point in arguing with you, nor is it worth the time addressing your fallacies in logic. Wikipedia is not concerned with right or wrong. It's concerned with veracity. There is alot of people, for instance, who don't believe the holocaust happened. That doesn't mean we should advocate a counter-point of view against the consensus of people who present a history of its existence on these here pages.

Here is what you don't get... watch carefully:

FACT Slither borrowed many, many elements from Night Of The Creeps.

FACT Critics and moviegoers complained and commented about Slither's similarities to Night Of The Creeps, stirring a minor controversy.

OPINION James Gunn claims (though we can't prove his intentions, since we don't have ESP) that he didn't intentionally borrow from Night Of The Creeps. He's a biased source and could be lying, but he still claims as much.

OPINION Fred Dekker, dir. of Night Of The Creeps, doesn't care or believe that Slither was ripping off his film. However he doesn't have ESP so he's simply stating his opinion.

OPINION Alot of critics and fans complain that Slither ripped of Night Of The Creeps.

OPINION Fans of James Gunn defend his claim that he didn't rip off Night Of The Creeps.

All these facts and opinions are sourced. But Wikipedia is only concerned with distilling them down to their basic truths. Including one opinion that Night Of the Creeps was ripped off is as bad as including an opinion that is was not ripped off. So it makes sense in the name of objectivity to not include either.

What all these opinions and facts have in common is that there was some controversy over the fact Slither borrowed a lot of elements from Night Of The Creeps and that's all that needs to be said about it. Trying to source whether or not it was intentional is unencyclopedic since all we can do is present POVs in favor of one argument or the other, which defeats the purpose of this online encyclopedic effort in the first place.69.146.137.178 (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And your missing the fact that it was agreed upon at an earlier point to include a James Gunn sourced statement that denies the Night of the Creeps influence. And it may have been original research in the beginning and I tried to get it to the point that it would work for you and me, and then when I thought a compromised was reached and you go ahead revert because an extra quote was added, and claim vandalism. 76.241.68.11 (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Borys Kit (2006-04-05). "'Slither' leaves gloomy trail". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "Slither (2006)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
^ Conor Bresnan (2006-04-24). "Around the World Roundup: 'Ice Age' Spans Four Weeks, Tops $300M". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Conor Bresnan (2006-04-24). "Around the World Roundup: 'Ice Age' Spans Four Weeks, Tops $300M". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Jason Clark (2006-10-20). "DVD Review - Slither (2006)". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[holly-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Borys Kit (2006-04-05). "'Slither' leaves gloomy trail". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[bom-2] "Slither (2006)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-22.

[3] Conor Bresnan (2006-04-24). "Around the World Roundup: 'Ice Age' Spans Four Weeks, Tops $300M". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] Conor Bresnan (2006-04-24). "Around the World Roundup: 'Ice Age' Spans Four Weeks, Tops $300M". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] Jason Clark (2006-10-20). "DVD Review - Slither (2006)". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 2007-09-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]