User talk:Bignole/Archive/2008/July

sign my autograph book!

Hi. I just recently added a autograph book to my userpage, so you're free to sign it. Ask any of your other friends to sign it too. Thanks. :) --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A July 4 Message

Steve ^{T • C} is wishing you a happy Day of Most Heinous Secession from the Kingdom of His Glorious Majesty, George III. While in the course of human events it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... you'll be more than welcome to return to the fold any time you get tired of this bloody independence lark.

Spread the reunification message by adding {{subst:User:Steve/Broadside}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you had a good 4th of July. Why up so early like me, though? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to the beach yesterday and was there a little too long, so I'm a lobster now. At night, we went inland to another barrier island and saw a decent fireworks show. I'm sore now, despite copious amounts of aloe lotion, so sleeping was a little bit of a chore. Got up to apply more lotion, but I clocked 8 hours of sleep, so I guess I'm pretty much up. My roomies and their friends are still conked out, so the morning goes slowly. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

With our discussion of how to write the Critical reaction section for Hancock, Steve and I agreed to see about a rewrite of the relevant section in WP:MOSFILM. He's started a draft in his sandbox, and I've added my commentary. You're welcome to contribute your own thoughts as well, especially regarding the balance of reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, I've moved the half-assed work-in-progress text to its own dedicated page at User:Steve/Reception. All comments welcome on its talk page, here. Steve ^{T • C} 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A rough first draft is ready for your eyes, here. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 11:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Friday the 13th (Nintendo Game)

I believe that I was told not to create a page for the original NES game. Why isn't a seperate article allowed for it? Considering that it is a very unusual game, I strongly feel that it deserves to have a seperate article, and more elaboration. (LonerXL (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Oh, Is that so? Well excuse me, for my intentions were only good for my fellow wikipedians. I was still trying to find decent sources, bring more to those who don't know, and bring nostalgia to those that forgot. I appreciate your response, even though we may never agree on each other actions and opinions. (LonerXL (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

I completely understand. Just out of wishful thinking/curiosity. Could we add some of the info that I had, to the main article? (LonerXL (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Mr. Bignole, with all due respect, I was thinking at least the cover photo that I had, and just a little more elaboration of the actual game itself:

The hunt for Jayson consists of traveling though the hiking trails, woods, the cabins, and a cave. The counselors must find clues to recieve various weapons. and must randomly battle Jayson, and defend the campers many times to in order to survive for 3 days. After each battle, Jayson returns stronger. The conselors are victorious if Jayson is defeated on the third day.(LonerXL (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

TCM

I've never seen TCM2 so I can't really say... wasn't the Hitchhiker crushed like a bug at the end of the first film? Although aren't all the TCM movies basically remakes of one another so that might not matter. The Chop Top article says he started out as Hitchhiker, and evolved into a separate character. I kind of want to see TCM2, isn't it kind of like Evil Dead 2 in that it adds comedy elements.

Btw, I was having a Nightmare on Elm Street run-through, and I've really started to like Part 4. The heroine, Alice, is pretty cool in that one and I like how her whole arc about gaining her friends abilities. If it wasn't for 6, that series is pretty solid actually.  Paul  730 13:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

??? The Chop Top article explains how he got his plate, and says that Hitchhiker is his twin. Are you just questioning the backstory presented in the film and fanwanking your own explanation? :P

Freddy is atrocious in Freddy's Dead, I honestly can't bring myself to watch that film again. Why didn't you care for the Jacob storyline? I remember you complaining about Alice's ever-regenerating social circle, and I was thinking about it during the film. The way I see it, the fourth film's characters were Alice's friends, and the fifth film's characters were Dan's friends. Alice just started hanging out with them after 4.

Btw, random question I've been meaning to ask you; who are your favourite minor characters in any horror movies? I've seen threads about this on forums, and I wondered if you had any obscure favourites. In F13, mine would be: the Bikers in 3, Violet in 5, Randy in 9, Tsunaron in X, and Kia in FvJ. They were all pretty cool IMO.  Paul  730 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No favourite characters? :(  Paul  730 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Explain TCM2 to me. Is it a wacky remake like Evil Dead 2 or can it be taken seriously alongside the first one? I hated the first TCM so the sequels have never appealed to me.

Maybe Dan was hanging out with his football buddies in 4 when we saw him, and the 5 cast were like his childhood pals or something. Jeez, overthink much? They needed fresh meat for Freddy to slash through, get over it. :P There was a cool comic book where Dan got resurrected in Dr. Gordon(?)'s body, and Gordon went on to be with Nancy in the dream world. And Nancy was like Freddy's other half, the master of the good side of the dream world. I thought that was such a good way to wrap up all the characters, a better way to end the series than Freddy's Dead. I think the comic is free to read on the Nightmare website, if you fancy it. I haven't read it all the way through.  Paul  730 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The story sounds good, but tonally, does it feel like the same universe? Not that it matters, I'm just wondering how seriously to take it continuity-wise. If I can find it cheap, I might buy it. Btw, have you heard any tracks from Evil Dead: The Musical? It's pretty fun, a film version would be great. I really like "Housewares Employee" for some reason. Finding my true love at S-Mart, that makes this job so groovy! Lol.  Paul  730 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are TCM3 and 4 actually canon or are they just so ridiculous that you choose to ignore them? Are they enjoyable films? I think Evil Dead really fits being a musical for some reason, they have loads of tracks up on YouTube. I like "Housewares Employee" because it's nice seeing a "nice" Ash before he became a repellent man-whore. Ash was best in ED2, I feel.  Paul  730 03:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with weird standalone films, it's when they damage the integrity of the original story/world that bothers me. Btw, I find it quite funny that we're having a pleasant conversation while arguing with the same... person at the same time.  Paul  730 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course, and I'd tell you the same thing. But we both have an argumentative streak so... :P I'm logging out now, speak to you later.  Paul  730 03:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen, or plan to see, Teeth? The men in my work are all traumatised by it, but I thought it was pretty tame TBH. The concept is scarier than actually seeing it (and boy, do you see it!). I'd like them to make sequels, if only to elevate the protagonist to horror icon status, she's annoying but quite unique.  Paul  730 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you fancy it? :P I found it pretty dull to be honest. None of the characters are particularly interesting. I only watched it because people keep talking about it. I didn't pay to see it, I just watched my friends DVD.  Paul  730 02:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brick wall much?  Paul  730 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're treading on thin ice, mate. First you slag off Desperate Housewives, then you undermine the importance of Buffy Season 8. Any other of my beloved franchises you want to rip into? Doctor Who or X-Men next? Eh? :P  Paul  730 02:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

*Holds hand up in a really gay way* Whatever. Lol, I'm only teasing, I agree with you, even if it pains the fanboy in me to do so. (Season 8 is EVERY bit as important as the TV show, goddamnit!!) You still said DH sucks though, I notice how you didn't deny that. :P On a serious note though, I don't think I agree with this "whatever came first is the most important" principle you seem to hold. Technically, Buffy started as a movie character, but that's not why she's famous. She probably wouldn't be notable at all it weren't for the later TV show.  Paul  730 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I just feel like there's sometimes an... original-ist streak to your arguments sometimes, which I don't agree with. I agree with what you just said there, that it's about notability rather than what came first. Oh, and I notice you didn't use Faith's surname. Lehane is canon, don't you know. ;) How is DH running out of creative juice? I partly agree, but would like to hear why you think so.  Paul  730 03:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article shouldn't just be about the TV character, it should be about all incarnations of the character, regardless of canon or medium. The way Michael's article includes info about Rob Zombie's version (non-canon) and Steph Hutchinson (canon comic book) in the characterization section. I know Michael's a film character first and foremost and you're not trying to erase all literature info from his article, but when people say the article is about the "TV/film character" and not the comics, it bugs me. Not to mention the fact that Season 8 isn't just a TV tie-in comic, it's a legitimate series in it's own right (which, I might add, is absolutely kicking Superman's ass in the sales charts. [1] :P)

DH season 2 was okay but messy, the Applewhite story was dragged out. The whole Katherine story in season 4 with her daughter dying was ludicrous ("My daughter died in an accident, I think I'll bury her the back yard!" As you do.) but I could forgive it because it's DH and it's a ludicrous world. I find it funny that you're trying to apply the exact laws of physics to a daft TV drama. The Tom and Lynette story I felt only strengthened their relationship. Yes, they're the stable couple on the show but that doesn't mean they have to be all flowers and roses. Lynette was suffering from despression and was tempted... but denied that temptation by firing Rick as soon as he made a move. She enjoyed the escapism he offered her and told herself she wasn't doing anything wrong because she's human and flawed. But when push came to shove, she didn't cheat and sacrificed that escapism and the small happiness it gave her for her family. Also, when Tom confronted Rick, he told him that even if Lynette cheated, he would forgive her and take her back. He told him there was no point in trying it on with Lynette, because their marriage was indestructible. The scars Rick left on their marriage (and I think Rick himself was just a plot device to showcase the struggles of marriage) were evident through seasons 3 and 4, but they stuck together. Then, in the season 4 finale, Tom lectured Bob and Lee about how their marriage had to be strong enough to survive anything (I wish there was an online transcript I could quote from because it was a beautiful speech). Finally, the "jump to the future" scene, Tom and Lynette are still together. So how on Earth is their marriage "ruined"? Because they're not Snow White and Prince Charming "happy ever after" perfection? That's bullshit. Sorry for that rant, but I love Tom and Lynette. They're one of the few fictional couple I "ship". I'm surprised you know that much about the show, I didn't think you watched it.  Paul  730 03:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The title Season Eight is to highlight that it's a continuation of the TV show's continuity, but Whedon has made it clear that it's a different animal to the show. Maybe it's just my opinion, but I view S8 as a whole new era for the Buffyverse with a fresh media, not just what a televised eighth season "could have been" as a lot of fans do.

Very few people can kick Batman's ass because he's the best franchise DC has. But the Avengers are, judging from Secret Invasion. :P

Maybe it puts a kink in your impression of her because you like your characters black or white (maybe that's me being prejudiced, but Jason and Superman, that's pretty black and white) but it made me love her more. Yes, she wanted to have that affair. Is it her fault if she fell in love with someone else? Do people really have any control over that? What she did have control over - actually cheating - she didn't do because it was wrong. Rick made her happy, for whatever reason, and she gave him up because it was the right thing to do. That's selfless and heroic! See the scene where Lynette, after firing Rick, comes home to an optimistic Tom. She humours him, then proceeds to cry her eyes out alone in the bathroom, because she's just given up the one thing that was keeping her going. The Rick storyline left a bad taste in a lot of viewers mouths for the reasons you described, myself included. Marc Cherri said on the DVD that he wasn't prepared for such a strong fan reaction to it. But after rewatching it, I have to say that Lynette and Tom come out it stronger character than they were before. Kayla (who was 11 as far as I know, and utterly terrifying) was another great way to make the Scavo marriage more complex. Desperate Housewives isn't a perfect show by any means, but it's got some strong characters in it. Bree and Lynette are brilliant. Gabby is a loveable villain with occasional moments of compassion. Susan is a train wreck, I can't stand the bitch. Totally agree with you on the Mike thing... so sick of them both. Their scenes make for a good toilet break though! :P  Paul  730 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't the same character from the show, but it's the next step in the Buffy story. If the film was volume 1, and the TV show volume 2, then this comic is volume 3, rather than just a tie-in to volume 2.

Come on now, respect where respect is due. A supposed "television" character like Buffy holding her own against long-established comic book icons (and in Superman's case, beating them) is unheard of. Season 8 is breaking new ground by proving that liscensed comics can rival Marvel and DC in sales and quality.

Mike is hot but bland. Susan is a one-dimensional slapstick loser... the closest she's had to a real story is Mike's drug addiction which was admittedly pretty interesting and allowed her show a bit of strength (threatening to leave him if he didn't go to rehab). I love Gabby, she's actually so evil but she does it in such an endearing comedy fashion that she can get away with it. I think the actress is a great comedienne. Bree is such a strong character. I struggled to like her during her season 2 homophobia storyline, but I kind of admire the writers for making her non-PC. It's more realistic. Bree has so many layers to her, she's very complex and morally ambiguous, which I love about her. Lynette is the perfect woman/wife??? What show are you watching? A few episodes into the first season, she was popping pills because she couldn't cope with motherhood and she belittles Tom constantly. I think real women responded to Lynette so much because she's the most honest depiction of a wife and mother - someone who genuinely struggles with the whole thing and isn't entirely happy. She's not meant to be "perfect", she's meant to be real. The fact that she had the chance to commit adultery and chose not to whereas Gabby did is something you should admire her for, not complain because her character isn't "perfect" anymore. The idea that women should all be perfect, infallible devoted wives actually creeps me out a little. They're human beings, they make mistakes and if Lynette is to be more than a one-dimensional poster child for the perfect wife then she's entitled to be tempted once in a while. The whole point of DH as a series is that no housewife is perfect; hence the title. Lynette and Bree embody that concept the most. which is why they're the best characters.  Paul  730 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Break

The TV show is the same story as the film. It's techincally a different universe, due to some continuity differences like Buffy's age and the vampire "rules", but it's basically the same story. The TV show doesn't retell the original story, because that story had already been told. Instead, it continues that story, picking up months later with Buffy already the Slayer. The story of the film is still canon, since "The Origin" comic is pretty much a straight adaptation line for line, with some minor inconsistencies ironed out.

She's beating the Superman titles, the fact that Superman appears in some popular crossover starring half the DCU is irrelevant. That's like saying Ms. Marvel is beating Batman because she appears in Secret Invasion.

I really disagree with your whole black and white moral stance here. If someone makes a mistake, they suddenly become a "cheat" and the marriage is basically over? Are you really that unforgiving? (Sorry if this is sounding too personal.) People aren't just robots with a "right and wrong" button. I'm not saying I condone Lynette popping pills or having an emotional affair, but I can sympathise with her because she's a fallible human being and was obviously doing it for a reason. I also don't think those reasons mean she should divorce Tom; they were having problems and Lynette suffered a moment of weakness, but does that invalidate their entire marriage? She still loves Tom, she was just unhappy with him for a number of other reasons. I'm not sure if she loved Rick (although Tom thinks she "fell for him"), he was more like escapism from the stress of her real life. Ill-advised escapism, but she realised that, and when there was a danger of it becoming more, she did something to stop it. Their marriage is strengthened because it's survived through everything that's been thrown at it; they've had so many problems but they've stuck together because, ultimately, their love is stronger that those other things (I'm getting all sappy here...). I think that's what marriage is about. And on a TV drama, I'd certainly rather watch a realistic and damaged couple like Tom and Lynette than some perfect Stepford Wives nonsense. Especially a show whose entire concept is undermines the illusion of a perfect marriage. Btw, I took the time to transcribe some of my favourite quotes from Desperate Housewives which I think emphasises the strength of Tom and Lynette's marriage. The second one isn't about Rick, but still shows that their relationship can survive anything.

Buddy, you're not thinking this thing through. Because Lynette will never leave her family. So the best, and I mean the best, that you can hope for is to catch her at a weak moment, and leave a wound in her marriage that will take years to heal. But it will heal. Because I will stand by her and I will love her just as hard as she hates herself for what she did. You still feel like sticking around?

— Tom to Rick

If you're willing to break up over an ice sculpture, you guys should absolutely not get married. Because who gets to choose the ice sculpture, who should take out the trash, who has to stay home and make the mini pizzas... that's the little stuff. What are you going to do when the big stuff comes along? What are you gonna do when a tornado hits your house, or you have problems with your kids, or one of you gets cancer? At some point, the crap is going to hit the fan and that is why, now, before you make the commitment, you have to ask yourself, "Is that person in bed next to you... worth the trouble?" Do you love him or her so much that no disease, no disaster, could possibly pull you apart?

— Tom to Bob and Lee

 Paul  730 02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using a fan mentality, if anything it's you that's pulling the "it's not canon" card. How is the TV show a reboot when it's a continuation of the film's story? If anything, it's more of a Superman Returns-esque "requel". The film featured a superficial cheerleader becoming a hero. The TV series continued that character arc, it didn't just revert her back to her original personality and start again. Being non-canon doesn't change the fact that the movie is an extremely valid chapter in the Buffy narrative. (God, I can't believe I'm sticking up for that piece of shit film). I only mentioned "The Origin" to show that the canon Buffyverse still counts the film's story.

I'm sorry that's happened to you before but I still believe in shades of grey. I don't think making a mistake turns someone into a bad person that should be thrown away like trash. Yes, those quotes were from Tom, because I quoted them to show you how strong the Scavo marriage is, not to prove Lynette is a good person. I admire Tom for being so understanding and forgiving towards Lynette. I doubt we're ever going to resolve this debate, btw. Might be best to just agree to disagree (I love how the discussion has evolved from the quality of DH writing to a serious ethical debate. We do love our tangents.)  Paul  730 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Swampfire

Your comments here and here were inappropriate, no matter how difficult he is being. Please remain civil. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Wayne series

Saw this on your to-do list, headed over to nose around. Since I'm dropping The Dark Knight due to the impossible situation there, thought you might want to work on that instead. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you're on, here's a diff of my latest efforts. A lot of those articles can be reused to source most of what's in there already. I thin kthat with a few days work, we can get that up from tagged for trouble to regular article, but likely not beyond. finding enough sources for a decade old concept to get to GA would be ridiculously tough. anyways.. .cheers and fgood luck with the internship! ThuranX (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, re: sources. I think the IGN stuff can replace most of that stuff, but for the time being, i've put it into proper format; thats's better than nothing, and lets others find and help revise, as well as show consistency. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. and focus on your studies, LOL. ThuranX (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

got it on the job thing. Thansk for the date fix, hate those. Looks good on the cites and the section rewrite, but careful cutting and pasting article to article, there might be some policy issues there. ThuranX (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Bignole. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

shoutboxes

I was wondering Bignole, do you know anything about Wikipedia shoutboxes? I want to add one onto my userpage, from seeing others who had them. Then again, I've tried going to those user's pages and going to, "Edit This Page" to see if I could copy and paste it onto my page, but that doesn't work. You seem to know a lot about this kind of stuff, so could you help me? I'll even give you an example of a user who has a shoutbox. This user: Penubag, has one. Do you see what I mean? THANKS! --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole. I really like it. But I was wondering if you could change it's background color to yellow, and also have it on my userpage. Other than that, it's great! You're such a great friend. And when you get a chance, can you leave a little message where you signed on my guestbook. Thanks! --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was able move it onto my userpage, and I don't want the background yellow anymore. Thanks Bignole! You're totally awesome! --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember to add a little message to my guestbook! You forgot! Also Bignole, could you fix my userboxes? They're all jumbled all over the place and the messed up my shoutbox! Can you fix it? Thanks! --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that when you first signed, you didn't add a little message. Look at Erik's signature on the guestbook; he left a little message and then signed! Do you get it? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please can you just do it? PLEASE??? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

a new barnstar!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you Bignole, for helping me with such little things that make big diferences. --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you like it? Do you have any other Barnstars? P.S: Do you think I deserve a Barnstar? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What does, "there is no cake" mean? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering....do you thnk I deserve a barnstar? If so which one? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Different pages for my guestbook and shoutbox

is there a way I can create different pages for my guestbook and shoutbox, but put the links on my page? is that possible? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dent's fate

Bignole. Careful or you're going to get a 3RR violation. I agree now that the movie pushes a view that should be respected in the article sans speculation so you're right. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dark Knight

That's what I've read, too, but I think I'm set to anticipate that kind of pace. :) From what I read, too, it seems really impossible to follow up with a third film. I've been reading forums with fans guessing who the third film's villain will be (aside from Two-Face), and I'm thinking, The Dark Knight just sent Gotham to hell and back. What could pose an even greater challenge to Batman and the city now for an even more exciting movie? I won't be able to see the film till next weekend since for some reason, the studio didn't distribute any captions for opening weekend to the theaters with the captioning systems. It sucks because the theater near me put the system in its biggest auditorium, so with TDK screning in that, another film like Hellboy II can't use the captioning system. Gotta play the waiting game and definitely keeping my eyes off this article... I'm accumulating sources at User:Erik/The Dark Knight (film), just the ones that Google News Alerts don't seem to catch. Any thought on a future rewrite or new images, both discussions on the talk page? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, didn't realize it was such a big deal. But since you're determined not to let me edit the page, perhaps you could leave a note somewhere in the summary to at least mention the Dawes/Wayne/Dent love triangle, because it IS a major plot point in the film and plays an enormous role in the transformation of several key characters. For instance, as the plot summary reads now, it makes no sense why Dawes' death would drive Dent to madness--there's no prior mention to the fact that they're in love.

And just for the record, I have trouble understanding why succinctness and brevity are a concern in a plot summary that completely blows the film's major twists and ruins the plot line for anyone reading it. Especially with a plot as complex as this film's. Pjmccormick (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"(and this movie wasn't complex at all, it just had a lot going on at one time)"

From the dictionary:

Complex: consisting of many different and connected parts.

I would say that definition jives with "having a lot going on," wouldn't you? Which would make the movie's plot "complex." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjmccormick (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of different meanings to a lot of different words, and they mean different things to different people. That's an important thing to keep in mind if you're going to concern yourself with effective and succinct communication.

And how succinctly you can manage to describe something has absolutely no bearing on how much it actually has going on. Especially considering that you eventually reach a point where you're just omitting things, not necessarily summarizing them more effectively. I could summarize Wall-E as, "700 years from now a robot falls in love with another robot, follows her into space and ultimately brings humans back to the planet they'd destroyed with pollution." But that's not summarizing the movie effectively, that's just leaving a whole lot of important points out.

And yes, the plot summary does flow a lot better and make more sense with your additions. Thank you for taking them into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjmccormick (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts

Spoiler-ish details about The Dark Knight within

I just saw the film last night, and it was incredible! It worked so well on so many levels. Ledger's performance was terrific, though I would like to see the film again much later on DVD because it was a little hard to not notice the acting (with all the talk about it). The Joker had so many brilliant moments, so many brilliant lines throughout the film. I think that the Joker's scene in the interrogation room (with Batman then the cop) were definitive of who the character is, at least Nolan's interpretation. Another great moment was when he slid down the money, classic Joker right there! Also, when the Joker talks about how there are schemers who try to control their little worlds, you become very conscious of what the "good guys" try to do toward the end of the film, especially Gordon.

I thought that Two-Face was really well-developed and loved how the Joker was the one to turn him. Two-Face's appearance was quite disgusting; I felt briefly sick to my stomach when they first showed us his face. In a way, you could tell Harvey Dent wanted to emulate Batman in vigilante effectiveness. I did like the fact that he never would have killed that Joker's henchman because of his two-headed coin. Wow, and I just realized that was how he was able to procure that date with Rachel Dawes. (Did you notice that brief shot where he recalled that moment for himself, showing Rachel anticipating the outcome of the toss for the date?) Not to mention his beginnings as the DA, having that "right cross" (after "winning" his coin toss to claim the glory).

Batman himself... wow. I was actually a little surprised that Bruce Wayne was ready to give up the cape and that Alfred Pennyworth would tell him to endure. I was expecting it to be the other way around... Bruce dancing on the razor's edge and the butler needing to pull him back. One thing that did bother me about Bruce, though, was that he did not seem to grieve that much about Rachel's death, considering how much his parents' death served as a catalyst for his vigilante role. I did like what Alfred had to decide for his master, though... very much ties into what the Joker said about schemers controlling their little worlds, how it can run so deep and personal, and not just being a matter of politics.

Other great scenes... the Skyhook (and how Batman timed his capture perfectly to go out the window in time), the Tumbler totally screwing up that garbage disposal truck, the Batpod, the sonic tool, Batman gliding through the dark night... I want to see the film again to follow it more clearly since there was a lot happening (like I did not realize until I read the plot summary that the Joker switched the addresses). Nolan has definitely, totally raised the bar with this superhero film. As for a sequel, you're somewhat right about there not being an opening. (It really looked like Two-Face died, though I thought it was an interesting point about there being no closed casket shown.) Obviously, though, there will be a manhunt for Batman. I do wonder if it will become some kind of bounty hunt. After seeing this film, I do think that Catwoman should be in the next one. There needs to be some estrogen, and I think that while Catwoman would be a jewel thief (claiming that insurance covers it anyway), she could be involved with Batman fighting violent crime because she "likes" him. Not sure who else could be in it, though... my problem with the fans' casting debates these days is that they're not considering the thematic development of the series. You can't go to the piddly investigation of The Riddler's meticulous duping after all the chaos instigated by the Joker. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

tdk

we should not put something in an article if it is not proven. It was not proven to be true or false. face is one of the biggest villans. plus eckhart said he cant wait to play him again! so we are not mentioning him either being dead or alive! savy?Quinlanfan2 (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• the fact that his chest was moving shows that he was alive! ive seen tons of movies that show someone who was dead and they were not breathing. if it is not officially approved then it should remain blank. i did not come to the conclusion. it was concured on the talk pageQuinlanfan2 (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • • with all due respect, you really believe dead people breathe? Quinlanfan2 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Once again i mean no disrespect, but these rule, regulations, codes, mean nothing. The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.

So you are trying to get me arrested? eh? Telling me to go video record the blody movie? Im not stupid! thats illegal! i know the laws. and the very fact that there is no casket at the memorial service is in a manner, proof. yes harvey dent did die. im not dennying that. Quinlanfan2 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this thread. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Nolan is known for the camera shots and details. When Face has his gun up to his head and flips the coin, Bats tackles him and they fall. The camera THEN purposely zooms in on the coin and it is shown Heads UP! Eckhart signed on for 2 films. They never say Two Face is dead. My guess is that they John-Doe him and stick him in Arkham. The Cit already thinks Dent is dead, so even if he is alive, they still wouldnt put the blame on himQuinlanfan2 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

signature help

Hi Bignole. I would like to change the font of my signature to, "Jokerman". How do I do that? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 20:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole! How do you like my kind of new signature? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bignole. I have a question about my signature. I dunno if you're allowed to do this or not, but is it possible for me to add a little image of a soccerball at the end of my signature? Or is that just like not possible? And by the way, I LOVE your dog! He/she is SOOOO CUTE!!--Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah... apologies.

I totally was not insulting you, but trying to characterize two views of what might constitute a 'series' and thus why Wikipedia needs some established definitions. By now, I think you know me well enough to know that if I want to insult you, I'll insult you; I won't spend two paragraphs on a metaphor. Further, given how much we agree, including on another thread tonight, a little good faith would be nice. ThuranX (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what? I apologized in two places for a situation which totally exists in your mind alone. I'm not comparing you to an aisle jockey, I'm illustrating how the word can mean EITHER everything related to the character, which I think counts perhaps as the franchise, OR to a single fiscal enterprise, like how executives kept extending the Burton/Schumacher line of batman films, which I think ought to be how we define a series. This is totally in your head. I re-read that for clarity before posting, and again now, and it says what I want it to say about the differences in the use of 'SERIES'. It's for the benefit of others. I enjoy working with you, and usually agree with you. But that you're going to act like I've insulted you when I haven't at all... That's really insulting. ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find any of this funny. I'm trying to get a solid distinction built here about what can and should constitute a series of films, not insult an editor who I regularly state I enjoy working with. However, it's seems you're no longer interested in such a collegial relationship on wikipedia. If that's the case, I wish you the best. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, man. You talk about how hard you work a lot. I read it whenever I see it. If I thought a guy working that hard was stupid enough to be an aisle jockey instead of involved in whatever degree it is you're pursuing (if i'm thinking of the right editor), I'd be an idiot. Go back and read. In the examples, it was ME interacting with the two viewpoints. I'm not interested in insulting you, I'm trying to form a solid argument for my side, but not at your personal expense. Usually, you and I can, and have, debated well, presenting two clear POVs, and getting consensus. I don't mind doing that with you. About all I'll say now is get yoru rest, reread it in the morning ,see it as a metaphor, not an insult. Good night, we'll continue tomorrow. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

thansk for catchign that, I'm busy trying to keep up with this guy's FORKing of the same damn content. I'm gonna go get an admin now. ThuranX (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi & Thanks

Hi Bignole! Thanks for the offer of help, was wondering when I might get one of them. Will give you a shout if I need a hand --Worm | mroW 14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Faith

Bignole, I am sorry if my posting a point in the Request for Comment section was inapropriate. Before doing so, I read over Wikipedia:Requests for comment (becasue I was not sure of the ettiquete for such a section). From the guideline, I thought my brief comment (summarizing my point) was appropriate, but can strike it if past editors are not supposed to comment. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

I don't think Steve and I really determined a "standard" way to order these sections. There seemed to be different arguments for different structures. For example, "Box office performance" is directly pertinent to the film's release, but "Critical reception" is less pertinent because its content has more to do with the outside perspective of the film than its specific release. After all, there could be decades-later reviews that belong there. I'm sure the other way could be argued, too. I think I was the one to shuffle the sections (I moved "Box office" and re-titled it "Theatrical run" so it could talk about more than just the $$$). What do you think? I'm not really pressing hard for a specific layout. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images: MOSFILM draft

I am seeking to revise WP:MOSFILM#Image to be more focused on the infobox image and shifting general instructions to a new subsection, "Non-free images", under the current MOSFILM section "Other article components". The new subsection will discuss how to best implement them and will provide instructions to do so. I began with discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Non-free images, and I've written up a draft at User:Erik/Images. If you could provide early input before I introduce the draft to the core discussion, it would be greatly appreciated. Please leave your feedback on my user talk page. Thanks, Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I've turned to the dark side. :-P If you didn't notice, I removed a few dozen DVD covers the other day by following the "DVD cover" category. I've barely scratched the surface, I feel, and imagine the lovefest I'll be getting when it comes to plot images. (Though I do have a different plan for that if the draft goes through... provide a week or two weeks' notice about the images needing to fit per policy. Still, it's not going to be pleasant.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's your take on soundtrack images in film articles? I'm not going to pursue any action at present, but I've noticed that a lot of them are near-replications of film posters. I was looking at WP:ALBUM, and while they don't say on the surface that soundtrack images need to be used at their own articles, {{Album cover article rationale}} does say this: This template provides a fair use rationale on the image page of an album cover, only for the album cover's article itself. I guess my thought is if there is enough independent coverage about an album, it can be spun off, but if it's nonexistent, we can use the infobox but not the image. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, for the future: User:Erik/Plot images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

signature help (2)

Hi Bignole. Sorry to bother you but, as you can see, I've designed a new signature and have been trying to chnage the font. But whenever I do, it says, "Invalid Raw Signature; Check HTML tags." Why is this? I've tried everything I possibly know of, but nothing works. What should I do?

--♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't fix it; the font on your talk page makes everything that font. I would like my signature though to have the font, Maiandra GD, the font on your talk page. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole; it worked. And since you've helped me so much with all of my signature problems, I'm giving you this barnstar:

		The Minor Barnstar
		For helping me with all of my Wikipedia signature needs. ♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Even so, you don't know how much it means to me. Also, I thought I should let you know that I'll be going away on vacation on the 2nd of August, and will be gone for a week. Here's the wikibreak template I'll be using:

{{vacation3}}

I'd just thought I'd let you know that. --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bignole. Something's wrong with my signature. I don't know what, it just won't come out right. I would do it my self, but I'm literally jam-packed with stuff to do today, so I'm much to busy to do it. If you could fix it, then that;'d be great. Thanks! --<font face="Maiandra GD">[[User:Soccer5525|<span style="color:white;background:Orange;border-style: double">♥Soccer5525♥</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Soccer5525|Talk To Me!]]</small></font> (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bignole. You;'re still, and always will be, the best! --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

collapsing discussions

I am unsure how to collapse discussion sections, so as to compact those bits from previous discussions brought over as background. Do you know how to accomplish this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)