User talk:Paul730/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Buffy's powers

Errr, what about the episode "Potential"? I remember they made a point (at least in the pilot) that Buffy had no innate vampire sensing powers, except through decisive sartorial critique. The channeling stuff / mystical protection should go in a small powers section but not the infobox. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was none other than me. Blame my Whedonesque RSS feed. (Edit: OMG HE ANSWERED MY QUESTION) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if he gave Lorne a happy ending. That's not what Angel's about though. Okay, only if it was appropriately comedic (e.g. a brief flashback to a Clem/Lorne wedding).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But it would be funny. And isn't he?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope the final page of A:AtF #12 is a double spread of Cordelia, saying something candid and unexpected in an "omg she's back" kind of way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it'd be a great cliffhanger.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Buffy's title

It wouldn't be supported on the disambiguous page, because the title of this article has nothing to do with disambiguation. I wasn't challenging that page. My move was based on the naming conventions page, which is completely different. The example he mentions is "School", which is something used in various mediums and forms; not something that is used primarily for one topic (like Buffy's name, television show, film, etc). In this case, it may be more appropriate to retitle the disambig page "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and provide links to all the other pages that share that title. It seems to me that this is more of that "canon" thing getting pushed through the fence. I left a comment on the talk page, and invited WP:TV and the naming conventions pages to the discussion. I don't know if anyone else will join.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate canon when I'm watching or reading something, but when it comes to an encyclopedia that should cover everything, it kind of bothers me to see pages run on the basis of "canon". Joss killed off Tara because she was gay? Didn't Willow and Tara have a pretty long romantic relationship? I'll check the Xander/Dawn stuff after work (since I shouldn't be on here). Your experience with the forum sounds like mine. I read all this "I'm not going to watch Smallville anymore because they are going to bring back Clana (Clark/Lana)" and all this stuff about how they hate that relationship. Get over it, I say.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it happens that way with every show. A certain fanbase gets pissed about something so they have to write up "hate mail", basically, to show their annoyance. You can't please everyone. I always thought Tara's death was such a shock that it worked strictly on that basis. I loved how it became the straw that broke the camel's back (in thise case Willow going all psycho-witch). Those episodes in that storyarc were some of the best IMO. I still remember today when I saw ASH come in at the last second and blast Willow with some magic of his own. He didn't last long, but it was still intense.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I liked Anya. I didn't care for that one night fling with Spike, but I liked the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like Spike, he reminds me of me in a lot of ways (well, after he became "good") He can get some, but there are just certain things that maybe don't need to be done. You have to admit, it seemed rather sharkish for her to fall in-love with another vampire (one that has repeatedly tried to kill her...and not simply because she slept with him and inadvertantly removed his soul). They shouldn't have turned to each other because it provided an excuse for Xander to not get back with Anya, and I thought they were a perfect match for each other. Not saying that Xander deserved a second chance after ditching her at the alter because of some stupid fear, but at least the door would have been more open.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was majorily Xander's fault. But I felt the one-night stand with Spike kind of put Xander in a place where he felt "well, if she can do that with him then I don't need to try and work things out."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was logical, just that it was his excuse. You can see, by the end of the show, his longing to get back with her (hell, you can see that from his jealousy over her fling with Spike). I'm merely saying it was something that happened that, I believe, he saw as his "upperhand". Some people may want to get back together with someone else, but when they see an act that makes them feel betrayed (as Xander probably saw the fling with Spike) it becomes more of a "I have to throw this in your face" thing, which ultimately removes that chance of getting back together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They seem to establish notable information, but I cannot say they establish enough notability to warrant a distinct page. That doesn't mean that they don't, just that unless you read the entire book you won't know how much information they provide. Also, I don't think a single source of anything screams "make me my own page," but if you find that there's so much OOU info there that it's best to separate the subject out, then fine. Do Xander and Dawn exist somewhere other than on their own pages, like a LOC page? If not, then I wouldn't worry about "establishing notability" right now, at least not in defense of some AfD or merge proposal. I'd just go ahead and weed out any relevant information from those sources and begin working it up. I have no intention of doing any proposals or nominations for them, and a lot of time if you can show enough effort to provide OOU information from reliable sources then no one else will either. Worst come to worst you'll just get some cleanup tags for the other sections. The sources look good, but it's all really based on what information they give and how much of it they provide. Like, a lot of the Jason info came from two books, but had I split up that info and put it solely on the film articles then it would have bogged the pages down...worked much better keeping it together. I think Xander and Dawn already have their own pages anyway, right? You might find somethings useful for some other pages, but I reckon that you'll be able to populate their respective single articles with quite a bit of OOU information. OOU information that may help point you into some other directions to look for some different sources (i.e. A book talks about Xander's homosexuality [hypothetical, don't take it seriously] and that's something you never thought about...so you go searching for key words of Xander and Homosexuality, which leads you to more sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear lord, I can only see it now. The reason Willow and Xander, and Willow and Oz didn't work out was because they were all gay. What the town of Sunnydale didn't know was that every one of the residence was "in the closet", hoping that no one would know the truth, even though they all shared the same secret. LOL, might have made for an interesting episode. Though I think Faith and Buffy getting it on (total sexual tension between those two) would have been hot. j/k.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Joking about the real reason they all didn't work out was because they were gay, not joking about the thought that Buffy and Faith would be hot. Yeah, I've read the thing about Angel and Spikes "deed". Kind of takes a note from the books of Anne Rice, wouldn't ya say?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't dis MotW setups, it's how a lot of shows make their living before they can expand. Smallville had the same issue; they couldn't delve too deep into mythos until they had the fanbase secure (hence the drop off in ratings for Season 3). Now they are almost full swing into mythos, and I have a feeling that whenever the last season is (if this be it, then maybe the last half of this coming season) it will be a "full tilt boogy" down the Superman lane. I agree, MotW can get annoying, but I find it's a necessary evil to allow for character development of the main cast. You try and have story arcs that run multiple episodes before you care about the cast and you'll run the show into the ground.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There is only so much you can cover in 42 minutes a week, 22 weeks a season, 7 seasons a show. Comics/novels (and the like) allow for a medium with greater access to characterization...as it's a little harder to show internal motivation on screen; writing it on paper is a lot easier. Hence why we generally don't see a lot of television/film characters speaking from the inner thoughts. Ever watch a movie and then, later, read the book it was based on? You generally find a deeper understanding of the character when you can read what they are thinking. MotW serve their purpose, which is to establish the front runners and fill time. That's usually why shows that are not meant to be serialized tend to lessen the use of said concepts with later seasons. Not every show is the same. Heroes has a lot of characters it has to connect, and you'd spend far too long with those MotW episodes establishing each individual character than if you did creating a story arc that go ahead and connect them. The problem with that is you tend to underdevelop a lot of characters (as I've heard mention is one of the few problems with Heroes, like actress Ali Larter's character, or Leonard Roberts). The same goes for Lost, which is why a lot of critics dislike the fact that the show has so many characters that become useless to the series because it takes forever to get to know them. They pop up one episode, you get a bit of backstory, then they're gone. Not every character suffers from that, but when you have a double digit cast in your first season, you're going to stretch yourself thin in the character development arena (unless you make every episode 90 minutes long).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't like her, I just said one of the things I've read about concerning that show was the lack of character development with certain characters, specifically the ones I mentioned. It tends to be an issue with large casts. Everything else I hear about the show is basically equivalent to it being one of TV God's best creations. I haven't read a lot of EU stuff (like say the comics or young adult novels for Smallville), so I don't have an opinion of them in regards to whether or not they are useless or if they provide good information and are entertaining. I'm sure not all can be good, especially when you have to compete with the stigma of being part of something very popular and held in high esteem by its fans.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Star Wars EU is generally better because I think I read somewhere that Lucas actually approves everything. They generally cannot write anything without his say so. They even have to do that with the games they make. There's a new Jedi game coming out and I was watching a video diary of them discussing how they have to contact Lucas and basically ask him if it's ok to develop certain characters a certain way. They have to basically pitch every little idea for his approval.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Present tense all the way, though I tend to not pay attention and leak the past (as it is kind of natural to write prior events in the past).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured I had written something in the past tense and that was why you were asking. It's kind of hard sometimes to not do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It can be silly at times. I'm trying to go through my university database to find stuff on Michael, but not too much is turning up...just film reviews for the most part and not even a lot of them. I did find this 18 page PDF for Buffy Summers, but every time I tried to copy it so that I could send it to you my computer would begin to lock up. I don't know what the deal was, but I could only get about 5 or 6 pages copied before everthing would lock up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was called Ambiguity and Sexuality in Buffy the Vampire Slayer: A Sartrean Analysis. It depends on what the information is. If it's simply talking about her being in academic studies, then I'm not sure. If it's academic studies talking about her then it would depend on the information given. What is being said about her exactly (some examples)? I'll respond in the morning, I need to get some rest--haven't slept that long in the past couple nights.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He didn't come, maybe he got shut down. Anyway, you could section it as CI for now, write up and then review it to make sure you labeled it well enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Always helpful. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. I'll check it out. You know I was looking at Buffy's ratings, and Smallville's ratings today and they were not too dissimilar. I thought it was kind of funny how close some of their later seasons were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

When you compare Buffy and Smallville to other primetime shows, they do have crap ratings. 4.5 million viewers a week it not enough to stay on NBC, ABC, or the like...but for the WB (or now the CW) that's their highest rated show. Also, it generally performs well in the demographics that it aims for, as I'm sure Buffy did when it was on. I noticed the same complaints about Smallville, but I actually like the later seasons. When you grow with the characters you have to grow with the stories. I prefer stories that focus more on getting Clark closer to becoming "Superman", and things that deal more with the mythos than anything else. Oh well, there will always be haters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing about DH basically since season 2. I also hear the same thing about Lost, and with its slumping ratings I wonder if they are going to end up putting their foot in their mouths saying that they will have 2 more seasons. Not that I hate the show, or think it's terrible (never seen it, so I cannot pass judgement), but them saying they will have a set number of episodes makes me hope this season's ratings are so far down that the network decides not to go on with the final season. I much prefer shows that live season to season, and don't get cocky about when they will stop.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Angel was good while it lasted. Sometimes you just have to give things a chance, and maybe move them around. Everybody Loves Raymond had horrible ratings the first season, but the critics loved it. The studio kept it on and it became on the top performing shows for the rest of its run. They changed time slots on Smallville twice, giving it the kiss of death when they put it on at 8 p.m. on Thursday nights, but for some reason it managed to perform even better (not as well as its second season though) in key demographics. Everything's funny that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

break

I'm not watching the page, but I just responded to your comment. I just happened to be passing through your contribs and saw that discussion, thought I'd through my 1/2 a penny in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It'll last another 4 seasons if it keeps its ratings up. As for names, she'll be remembered as "Bree", and the rest will be simply "Susan", "Gabrielle", "Lynette" and "Edie". No one will care about their last names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be "Mr. Garrison", because that is how he is known to popular culture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who said it contradicts what I said? Anyone that followed the comics up until she changed her name would only know her as "Girl". The thing is, she's always been "Sue Storm", which is probably a better name for the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To me she is always "Sue Storm". I wouldn't say that she's known better as Sue Richards. I've seen interviews with Stan Lee where he will refer to her as Storm. Common name is subjective, as we're getting into that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" debate all over again. We'd be changing article names all the time if character's names were changed that often.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The character appeared before the comics for one. Other than that, I couldn't tell you. I could tell you that you'd never be able to convince anyone that when people type in "Superman" that they aren't looking for the character himself. Superman's also been around for 60-70 years, and has kind of been labeled an American icon (the character, not the comic or films) and so an argument that "Superman" is more associated with character than any other form of media would be very hard to beat. In opposition, Buffy isn't an American icon, at least not that I've ever read. She's extremely popular (the show and the character), but not in a level--again, from anything I've come across--where we could say that someone searching for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" isn't searching for the character, or the television show, or the film that started all of the phenomenon that came afterward. At least, that's my take on why "Superman" is for the character, and that the page isn't "Superman (character)". The Comic WikiProject is funny that way. It's probably the same with why anything related to Buffy is under "Buffyverse" and not "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Goes back to that continuity issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because her continuity spans two locations, it was titled Buffyverse. Whereas, she started on Buffy. The title is a means to satisfy the issue of continuity, instead of origin. I just always thought it was odd. I mean, it's applicable, but still odd.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it a blog? I couldn't tell when I looked at it. I mean, it kind of seems that way. I looks like college students posting their analysis of the show--which I'm afraid wouldn't be considered "professional". Otherwise, we'd be taking Angelfire blogs as sources. Unless the analysis is by someone from the show itself, that would be a different story. If those blogs were published in reliable journals, then that would be fine. But it's hard to tell if those are anything but essays from anyone and everyone that sends it to the site. Then again, looking further at the site, you could argue that Slayage is a publishing journal, and no different than any other journal that exists online. According to this, anything submitted goes through several reviews, so it doesn't appear that "anyone" can submit "anything" they like and it will get published. I say, take the discussion to the talk page, alert the editor that removed the source (don't put it back, it will only cause edit wars I'm sure) and start a discussion about the possibility of considering this a peer reviewed journal. I would point to the page I linked above as reasoning. Let me know if you start the discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would go invite the editor that removed the source to the discussion. I will keep my eye on the discussion and if I feel I need to elaborate my side one way or the other you can be sure that I will step in. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also use the cite journal template when sourcing them, and use the PDF version of those essays....if the source is deemed reliable. On a side note, it may be best to leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, directing them to the discussion... you may attract some unbiased editors, which would be best.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to revert your semicolon usage. It wouldn't be a complete sentence to say: "the yellow Sun, and exploits it with the help of Martian Manhunter.", and a semicolon denotes that each could stand alone on its own, if separated. As for MM, on the show he doesn't have a name, but The CW in their write-ups always call him Martian Manhunter, and in interviews, Gough and Millar always identify him as such. If they give him a name, I don't know what we'll do. He may go by John Jones (different spelling of J'onn J'onzzz), as I've seen that used as well, and I think in "Labyrinth" that his patient name tag said "John".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't really tell in the episode, but you can see for yourself at Stuff magazine. But, Tom Welling was looking particularly larger than before. It looked like he had been working out to get a little bigger, because his arms looked larger than last season. Amazon was selling the first five seasons for 20 dollars (not sure what the equates to for you), so you could probably get them cheap ordering online. Obviously 100 dollars, or whatever the exchange is for you, isn't cheap as a whole, but just one season is pretty cheap considering the general price here is like 40-50 dollars.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured as much, but I thought I'd just show you anyway. ;) I believe that £20 is about 10 US dollars, but I could be mistaken. You kinda do have to watch them. I feel that the seasons get better as they progress. Since going over to the CW the show has become darker, both storywise and cinematography. I think that's because a lot of the show focuses more in the Metropolis area all the time, and in Smallville now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah I've seen that one. The Aquaman footage was from the unaired Aquaman pilot. Did you see Martian Manhunter from that unaired JLA movie? I saw Jim Caviezal as Green Lantern-I think it was from that movie he did with Ashley Judd. That horrible Flash television series..lol. It was still pretty good though. It's amazing what some editing and new music can do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, Jim Caviezel was Green Lantern in non-GL form. Didn't you see him running around the jet plane and such. I would assume that would make him Hal Jordan--which, btw, I think they are going to go with James Stewart for the JLA movie, as I think the comic section of Warner Bros. won't release Hal Jordan to any screen media (he's usually replaced when they do a JLA cartoon and such). I remember The Flash series, they give you a free episode with Smallville season four DVD, it's "really" dated. lol. My ideal JLA lineup? Well, first, my ideal movie is one that exists after they have individual movies for Flash, GL, and WW. They are quintisential DC characters who deserve their time in the spotlight (no matter how bad the movie could be) before you team them up. Erik and I have also dicussed the fact that you have to make mention of these other heroes in the movies. We need to know that Batman exists in a Superman movie, and the same with the other characters. Then, when you finally make the movie it should be about the formation of the JLA...with introductions for maybe one or two new superheroes (maybe Manhunter and Vixen...just looked up the last one). I looked at Vixen, and we need a strong, black, female superhero (God knows that Catwoman movie was horrible). You?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, Catwoman was THE-WORST of all the superhero movies. The acting sucked, even for Berry, and the dialogue was by far horrendous. I forgot about Aquaman. Yes, he needs his own movie first as well. Storm is Marvel, so as of yet, DC doesn't have a screen version of a strong, black heroine. I'm actually really anticipating the Iron Man movie. The trailer is pretty awesome, and I have a lot of trust in John Favreau. His movies typically come out well. I don't see Antman or Thor doing particularly well, unless they market them to children--kind of like Fantastic Four (which, ironically, should have been marketed to adults). They just aren't strong characters in the manner of grabbing audiences who aren't already fans of the characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd take CA over Thor. I would be willing to bet that more people can identify Capt. A than Thor. I liked LOTR, they were long, but good. I think that's what I like about Tony Stark, because it beats the "goody goody" heroes. I mean, Batman can be dark, and Wolverine can be a jerk, but Stark sits on the fine line of anti-hero and full fledged hero. I agree, the suit does look better than I expected. I was worried about how they would make it look real and movable, but in the trailer at least it looks amazing. They should have taken a page out of the Spider-Man and X-Men movie books, make your movies a solid PG-13, because unless you make a Shrek type of movie, don't try and play the children friendly crowd when you have characters which could be so much more entertaining if they were a bit more real. Namor will steal the thunder, because Warner Bros./DC is slacking their asses on any characters who don't have the initial "S" or "B" in their name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't either. CA is better left to the WWII era. I don't see much room for him in the age of terrorism, suicidal bombers, and most importantly cyber crimes. Well, if you make them all register then you cause the possibility of leaks to their identity and more harm to the people they know personally. But it doesn't make sense that you don't like him because of the unnecessary villainization the writers created. Seems like you would like him if you feel it was an unnecessary act they caused upon him; it means that you cared about how he was before. ;) You can like someone and hate them at the same time, ever more so with fictional characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The same way I know Superman, Batman, and any other character--I read about them. Not as fun, granted, but a lot faster than starting from issue #1 and going forward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is, but in an updated way. I don't think it was a war in Afghanistan that he got hurt in. According to Favreau, he won't have all the personal demons that he had in the comics, if he is the one to direct any sequels. He said that the character will progress like the comic character, and develop those demons over time. Like, he won't be an alcoholic in this film, but it's something that will develop as they progress through the films...if there are more than one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The decade is almost up, because it started with Blade in 1998. By the time we most of these comic book movies into the theaters--meaning the ones we currently know are in production or about to begin--we'll be on our way to decade number two. If it runs into 2028, we'll be looking at a lifetime of comic book movies. I doubt it will get that far, but then again, slasher films may have slacked off since the mid 90s, but they are technically still around today...and there have been a lifetime of those.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The success of Blade, which was a Rated-R film caused Hollywood to start snatching up as many comic characters as they could. Notice how there was a small gap between Blade and a large slew of films that came out, as that was when they bought them and went into production. Since I'm not familiar with the X-Men's specific origins, I'd have to go with Spider-Man. They only tweaked the history here and there and it came out spectacularly. When I think about the X-Men, I think Magneto certain got a good start. It was interesting to see that he was a prisoner of the concentration camps, and that's what drove him to hate humans. Mystique really didn't have anything going on as far as backstory when she was introduced. The same with Nightcrawler. Althought, the first five minutes of X2, when Nightcrawler is going after the President--even though I was like, "why he is attacking people?!!"--was probably the coolest thing in all of those movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See, I'm not that familiar with either of them so I wouldn't have known how good of an adaptation they were. I liked Nightcrawler, and I wished he could have stayed on...but X3 was such a different tone than the other movies. Pure action, instead of drama with action surrounding it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one character that didn't turn out well. I mean, I was so hoping for some development of her abilities over the films, but she was too stuck on "oh, I cannot kiss a boy." How about getting her to learn to control her ability, so that that doesn't happen...or actually keeping some powers that she's stolen? The films were good, but that's one aspect that was a let down.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure which was the best one. I was initially just trying to make a cleaner link, and then saw there were two pages. If you don't like the second one (which I think is the first one linked), you can ditch it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

EU

Just mentioned ones that actually expanded on the character in a way that was not done in the show itself. Jason was a bit easier because he hasn't really appeared in that much literature, so I could mention briefly the plots of some of those books, but Buffy will be harder because of the simple fact that she's appeared in far more. Since she's appeared in so much, you could have a "Buffy in literature" page (maybe a better title) that chronicles all her literature appearances. This way you can put that link at the top of the section and anything not mentioned can be easily accessed by clicking that link. This way you can focus on ones that actuall impacted the character.

That wasn't the original ending to the film. Donner was filming Superman and Superman II at the same time, and the pressure to complete a movie and get it into the theaters made him alter some things. I admit, the turning back time like that was kind of ridiculous, but if you believe a man can come from another planet, billions of miles away, fly, shoot heat from his eyes, has super strength and speed...then you probably just have to let that thing go. Although, I find it hilarious in Smallville's 100th episode--If you haven't seen then please stop reading--when Clark turns back time and Chloe's like: "What'd you do, spin the Earth in reverse on its axis?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I've seen that video, but it's still funny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware they had a page. Since they do, then that's just less work. I'd try and find a source that talks about those other books and things. Again, it isn't as simple as Jason where I can basically list all the books, beause there are so few.

Spacey was ruined as Lex because of the trailers. The trailers ruined a lot of his good dialogue, and much of the rest was stolen from the first two movies. Kitty was good. I couldn't figure out the point of hiring Kal Penn when the guy didn't speak. I actually prefer Erica Durance as Lois. Margot always seemed too old looking to be Lois. Durance's Lois is one of my favorites because, to me, it's closer to what the comic book incarnation actually is--that tough as nails, not afraid to save the day even though she's as human as anyone else, doesn't take crap from anyone. Margot was supposed to be that, but she really didn't embody it when I watched her. Erica does. She's a regular in season five and much more prominent in season six. Also, one thing I didn't care for in the films, and this is even worse in Superman Returns is Lois' ignorance to Clark's existence. I mean, it's like she doesn't even see him as a friend as much as he sees her as a friend. That would be one of those instances where, if I was Superman, it would probably bother me that she's in-love with Superman more for the things he can do than the things that make him who he is--which are basically the same things that make Clark who he is. I prefer the love/hate relationship of Lois and Clark in Smallville. Right now it's almost sibling rivalry, because they give each other a hard time, but there isn't any romantic notions between them--at least not at the moment. I didn't care for Sam Huntington as Jimmy, he was just kind of annoying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lois is supposed to be attractive. Smallville's Lois is an army brat. She kicks people's ass quite often. Chloe is Lois' cousin, and probably her gateway to journalism. In season four, Lois has to finish high school at Smallville High because she failed her last semester in her last high school. She writes a couple articles for The Torch, but doesn't have an interest in journalism. In season six she starts to really get into journalism, and gets a job for the Inquisitor-that tabloid. Apparently, she finally gets a job at the Daily Planet at some point this season. Clark's final love interest will be Lois, Gough and Millar won't mess with that. They just promise not to have Clark and Lois in a relationship during this show's run. I actually did like Teri Hatcher's Lois. I liked that show, even though watching it now (I have all the seasons) it's far cheesier than I remembered. Season two was the best season for that show. I liked that show because Lois and Clark really worked together, and it showed how they could fall in love with each other. Lois figured out Clark was Superman, but she technically fell in love with Clark before she knew the truth. I like Susan Mayer, she's one of the "innocent people" in that neighborhood. Ashmore's Jimmy is pretty good, but it could also just be the writing, and that goes for SR as well. I thought Richard White was actually a pretty decent character in his own right. I mean, he wasn't an asshole, like they could have made him be once Superman returned...you know, becoming all jealous. He was rather endearing, and I have a feeling that he's going to get the short end of the stick in the next film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to see her in more episodes...especially ones that don't involve filler material like "Krypto" and "Ageless". She doesn't have much going on in those. Matter of fact, she doesn't have much going on until season five, and especially season six. Based on her character's interactiveness in the series, I would assume season seven is going to be very filling for her. The irony is that she was only supposed to be on the show for 4 episodes, but Gough and Millar managed to convince the film department to let them use her more, and next thing you know she's a series regular.

In season six, Jimmy is comic relief, but he's a good comic relief...and he's also just a recurring guest star. I wouldn't say he's "underdeveloped", because in reality the show is about Clark and Lex, not Lois, Chloe, Lana or Jimmy. Though, you do see different sides to Jimmy, a bit of jealousy over Chloe's relationship with Clark, a tiny bit of backbone when he tries to go up against Lex--and fails, miserably. His heart is usually in the right place, but he's so oblivious most of the time. Ashmore and Mack have great chemistry together, so that plays a lot into as well. Since Jimmy is a regular this season, I have to assume they will develop him even further. It seems you don't get a lot of development in your character unless you are a regular.

Susan a liar? Edie? Not a liar??? Wasn't Edie lying to Carlos about wanting children, just so he'd stay with her? Isn't just really like the town slut? Should I mention the fact that she lied to Mike, a man who suffered from amnesia, for how long? Plus, wasn't Edie's drug addict nephew that was trying to knock-up every teen lolita in town--succeeded with Bree's daughter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What mystery is that? Whatsohername's death? Have you seen "Justice", or is this just from what you've heard other people say? If you watch the show from beginning to end, you'll see it's a transition moment. Superman isn't the only superhero in the DC universe, and he wasn't the "first" either. It's only fair to think that he's probably going to be meeting, or at least hearing, about other heroes in the world. Unless you pull the "he's the only hero in this universe" thing, like the movies do. Smallville at least respects the universe in that aspect, and I think that is what people mistake as "jumping the shark", because they think of the movies and how he's the only one in existence in those continuities. As for costumes and code-names, it was a great episode and it's a throw back to the comics again. Even Clark not joining the Justice League upon being requested for the first time to join is a throw back to the comics. I say, if you don't like that stuff, then you don't like all the comments about Superman that have littered the show: like Chloe saying Clark must be from an ice-planet when she mentions it's freezing and he shrugs it off (that was before she knew his secret), or Clark's loft being called his "Fortress of Solitude" before he actually had one. If you didn't connect to the comics, you'd end up with no mythology whatsoever, which would suck. Green Arrow's costume was actually pretty cool, and kind of like a Christopher Nolan-Batman Begins update to the look of that costume.

Marcia Cross, your fav, throw a hissy fit? lol. Didn't anyone every tell her that Teri is Superman's girlfriend, and he'll kick their asses. lol. Pictures? I guess you mean that one picture of Clark, Green Arrow, Cyborg, Aquaman and Impulse walking away from the explosion? You have to see the episode, because it all plays into Lex's 33.1 experiments. As for the shark, I've never really believed in such a thing. Shows have to do what they have to do to survive. So long as it isn't completely out of this world (pardon the pun), I don't think things are as "jump the shark" as some people make them out to be. To some people it could have been, but it certainly wasn't a wide-spread opinion like that whole Happy Days incident which started that phrase.

When Buffy left High School? lol. Did they expect her to stay there for longer than 4 years? I was glad when Smallville left the high school times, because the shows became more adult themed. I mean, I love the early seasons, but I'm 22 and I don't need to watch supposed 15 year olds and their love-lives, they hardly know what love is. That link you had, they didn't seem to list the "Justice" episode, which was kind of what I was saying. I'm sure some people think the show has, but they probably have different episodes for their reasoning. I'm sure some people never wanted to see Lois, but to me, she's a really fun characters...especially when she's busting Clark's chops. To me, Smallville is probably the best Superman--even though it isn't "Superman". Actually, that's why I think it's the best, because Clark isn't even "Superman" yet, and he's still Supermanly. Did you see what they said about Grey's Anatomy? Top vote is that that show jumped when Meredith died--and subsequently came back to life.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Costumes: Well, Impulse's and Cyborgs were, but I guess you couldn't really have Bart in true Impulse gear (kind of looks odd) and Cyborg is usually with all his metal parts hanging out. Aquaman was fine, basically looked like he normally does...but I don't care for Alan Ritchson. Clark...well, that's just his normal attire..lol. Again, you have to watch the episode. You tend to ignore things like that because the episode itself is pretty good.

Batman in Smallville? I doubt it. It could work, considering the dark tone of both shows (especially Smallville lately), but we'll never see it. That stupid Bat-embargo will probably never get dropped until the films are dead and gone. I'd love to see Bale make an appearance on Smallville. He doesn't have to be in Batman costume, just show up as Bruce Wayne. I mean, we technically already have our "Batman" character in the Gree Arrow--who had 7 episodes last season and will probably get a couple this season. Right now, Batman's got Gotham. I mean, I thought it was bad when in Superman Returns it announces Superman saving people in Gotham.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, well it does when you say it like that. Maybe I should have said "Superman-esque". Is that better? Sorry about the partonizing bit, but it's true. Hell, you're what, 17?, and I'm sure you'd feel the same way about 15 yo. It's fine for awhile, don't get me wrong, but I expect growth with that, not 7 years of the same ol' schtick. I don't follow Grey's all that much, my g/f loves it. I saw the episodes in question, and I didn't have issue with them. I think the show has strayed from the comedic roots that it was praised for into more dramatic storylines. It's becoming dangerously close to E.R., and it should run in the other direction. I could pretend that BB is in Smallville's universe, I'd actually like to see that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Woman? What do you mean?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, Oh. Yeah, I remember that. They did that with Oliver Queen in the pilot, and another episode later on in the show, before they actually brought the character in. I'm not really knowledgeable on WW. The character is alright, but since I never really followed her, I don't really have a strong opinion of her one way or the other. You? Although, Lynda Carter guest starred as Chloe's mom in season six.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Superman comics. The only Superman comics I have are the Death of Superman, A World Without Superman and Superman Lives. I have read a couple random ones here and there, but probably no where near what you might think based on what I know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I had one X-Men comic, though I cannot remember what it was. I had a few Batman comics (2 of them were from a 4 issue run in Shadow of the Bat where Batman pretends to be insane so that he can infiltrate Arkum Asylum and prove that Zsaaz has been killing people, even though he was in Arkum. My comic readage and ownage is pretty limited. I've been a movie guy since I was about five, and that has dominated my media life.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

TV shows, and films are a lot easier to get ahold of. Plus, with school--where I don't do the reading I should do--and with Wiki--where I buy the books I need to make better pages--I am usually tired out of reading. Right now I'm trying to get through Dracula (original), and constantly thinking, "I really should read for school, or that will catch up to me." As for your friend, I would have to agree, that is pretty closed minded. I avoided Smallville for that reason, but once I saw it I was hooked. But I'm sure I can name plenty of movies that are "crap" and "stereotypical". You get more originality in television nowadays than you do movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my second attempt at reading it, and it's going much easier now. That's probably because I read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein a couple semesters ago and her writing makes Stoker's writing look like grade school level reading.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much just for fun. I'd probably have prefered Maggie Gyllenhaal to Katie Holmes in the first place, but I'm with you...I hate when they recast. Then again, it's a Batman film, so we should be used to that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor character like Rachel doesn't matter to me, but someone like Christian Bale needs to stick around for the next few years if the emotional journey of the main character is to remain convincing.

I also quite like X-Men, and agree that even though Claremont's run has slightly dated, his understanding of the character's emotions really rings true. It's just all the aliens and time-travelling feels distracting from the main stuff. I really love the Morrison and Whedon story arcs as well as the current run of "near extinction" stories. Alientraveller 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Phoenix is a beautiful idea. It has this whole theme of "power corrupts", which is a big recurrance in the third X-Men film ("Don't let it control you" chokes me up). As that damn Brotherhood was acting like terrorists, they were asking to get depowered. Alientraveller 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jansenn gave it her all in the trilogy, and was a standout. Shame Cyclops was shafted: I wanted him and Wolverine to be like brothers in the third film, but darn Halle Berry wanted a bigger part, so... Now there's someone who I wouldn't have minded getting recast. I thought her part in X2 was strong enough anyway. Alientraveller 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Jean, Prof X, Wolvie, and Magneto" you listed why X3 worked for me as those were the most vital characters in the trilogy. Now let's hope that now Rogue is not a mutant, we can bring in more of the Pryde. I heart Ellen Page. Alientraveller 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame the character will be recast, but I really like Page. I saw a clip of Juno and I got the giggles as she reveals as her character reveals to her parents she's pregnant. Looks like it's worth a rent (I generally reserve cinema for blockbusters, Spielberg, and Pixar). Alientraveller 19:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I hope you enjoy it. The last films I saw were Transformers and The Simpsons Movie, both childhood dreams of mine fulfilled. I'm just not a nitpicky person though, I left many forums because people were divided over what they actually liked, which is boring. I prefer discussing things we all agree we like, which is what Wikipedia is great for, because I collaborate with so many people who share the same hobbies and understanding of this playground's rules. Alientraveller 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. I don't watch a lot of primetime telly apart from Doctor Who or The Next Gen (Jekyll I did watch and love), as well as various cartoons I watched since I was young like The Simpsons (I can't wait for Transformers: Animated). I have been getting into Smallville thanks to Bignole's work. I watched a bit of Buffy five years ago, but I'm squeamish and vowed never to watch another episode as there was this really scary one. It had Willow and oh... Anyway, I may watch the new Bionic Woman, if only for Michelle. Alientraveller 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not even type it. But I think you guessed it. Anyway, onto lighter things: keep doing good work on Buffy. As you're such a comics fan I can see you getting a lot of articles to GA. Any particular characters? I know you like Cyclops, and She-Hulk could be easy as she is newer than most Marvel characters. Alientraveller 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Were you aware of Portal:Horror? They have an "article of the month" section, which had Buffy on there awhile ago.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, when they updated the talk page I ventured over there, because I wasn't aware of it. I saw it on the main page and then ventured into the archives. That was where I saw Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been a recent article of the month. So, it occurred to me that we should get Michael and Buffy up-to-snuff asap, as we have another locale where we can have an article featured on a main page. As for Jason on the main page...hmm we could request May 9 (for the original release of the first Friday) or August 13 (for when Part 3 was released and he got his trademark mask).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to have significant relevance to the article, and I don't believe a fictional birthdate would qualify (for either character). June 13 will be a Friday the 13th in 2008--don't know if you were insinuating that, or just the fact that it's Jason's supposed birthdate. So, either we wait till the next Friday the 13th--which is ironically Jason's birthday--or we go a month sooner for the anniversary of the original film, or two months later for the anniversary of the third film. We'll have to watch out that one of the Halloween movies doesn't request that date, as that's typically what happens. But, I think we could petition that they have been on the front page before (at least the first and third have--maybe even the second film) and that Michael deserves it more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You could request July 31, 2008 for Buffy, as that would be the 15th Anniversary of the film's release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance paragraphing

As long as there are clear breaks in coverage. I look at it as fine in your article because clearly season four and season six dealt with aftermaths of Angel's departure and her own death. Similiarly, when writing Jack Sparrow, I decided to deal with Jack's death at the end of Chest and resurrection in End all in one paragraph, though it's been changed since. Similiarly, Jason Voorhees puts Jason's first murders and the adventures of Tommy Jarvis in their own paragraphs. Alientraveller 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put Buffy and Angel sections within "Televison" for the Angel article. But they look fine really. Whatever makes sense for you. Alientraveller 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

It wasn't too bad, a lot better than most of those sequels. You can really tell it's a Zombie film because every other word out of most of the character's mouths was "fuck"..lol. That's about the only thing I get tired of in his movies. There was gore, but it was more in the vein of keeping it realistic, instead of just being gratuitous. I was actually surprised to see him use cut-aways in a few instances. I thought the bery beginning (like the first 10 - 12 minutes) was rushed. He spends 40 minutes on young Michael, but even in the beginning it seemed like he was rushing the family life stuff. I have to admit, there were times I felt sorry for Michael, he did actually manage to provide a bit more depth to the character. Sometimes I felt the acting itself was a little forced from most of the characters, but that could have easily been Zombie's dialogue. Laurie certainly lost her innocence. I mean, she's still innnocent, but that prudishness of JLC's character is gone. I was pleased to find that I wasn't watching the original film, in almost anyway. There are certainly homages around, with certain characters reciting key lines of dialogue associated with their 1978 counterparts, but a lot of it was fresh. The more I reflect on it, I think, the more I kind of respect his take on the original film. It certainly wasn't the best Halloween, but it was good enough to be called by that name. Now, I just have to rewrite the plot section of that page and develop the reception section. I abandoned that project awhile ago because people kept fighting me with it...I think I'll return to it after I finish up Batman Begins.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was two different films. You kid of see a lot of "big Michael" inside of "little Michael". You also see a method to his madness, like why he stops talking. "Little Michael" comes off as truly damaged mentally. He's like every other kid one minute, and raving psycho another. As for Laurie, unlike the original, this movie is all about Michael...it isn't about Laurie. That was kind of a plus for me, because we've already seen a movie about Laurie (technically 3 of them), it was good to focus on Michael in a fashion that was based around some occult. As for his family, other than the cussing, it seemed to me to be a bigger breeding ground for his psychosis than would one of those nuclear families...especially since the film doesn't take place in the same time (i.e. Michael isn't a 5 year old boy in the 60s, were nuclear families were common anyhow). I have to agree that the male deaths were kind of put on the side, but I also saw a lot of the deaths as a symbolism to Michael equivalent to that of his own family. When you see the film, you kind of pick up on the fact that maybe he looked to the women in his life as nurturers, or at least expected them to be that, and so it was probably more of a betrayal to him to find all these women that do not fit his idea of what a woman should be (like Annie and Lynda only caring about themselves and getting laid). At least, that is how you can look at it in respect to why he attacks them more brutally than he does the males. You'll have to see it to pass your own judgement, obviously. Is it in your theaters yet?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for a new movie, or a shot for shot remake? We've already seen the original, and Michael is Michael in this film...not "The Shape". That's kind of why you have to look at it with a different eye. Kind of like comparing Batman Begins to Batman. They're really two different versions of the same film, one focuses on Batman, one focuses more on The Joker. Loomis was interesting, very different from the Pleasance character. That's all I can say.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When you watch it, all I can say is forget everything you know about the original. No matter what someone does, they cannot please everyone, and Zombie would have been compared to the original even if he had made a sequel. These are two different types of filmmakers. My girlfriend thought the original was slow (which it kinda is). She thought this one was really bloody, but also very "actiony" (her words). This movie is, if that's anything, not a slow movie. At least, I didn't think so. I'm planning for her to watch the original TCM tonight (hopefully) because there is a very obvious homage to that movie at the end of the remake. When you see it, I think you'll know what I'm talking about. Just to let you know, in case you start getting fearful, Michael does not do a dance in the road with his knife..lol, so you can rest easy that I'm not referring to that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't typically take her to see them, but she knows how much I love the 80s slasher movies, so she agreed to go with me. I don't really like going to a theater by myself, I don't care for people all that much. Individuals are usually fine, but people as a whole are annoying. Upon reflection (i.e. me turning around and asking her) I do take her to see a lot of them. Namely, Saw III and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning...most recently. I did make her sit down and watch The Descent with me (I had already seen it and loved it). She about jumped out of her skin the first time she saw the creatures in that movie. It was hilarious. I was laughing out loud because she was literally screaming and clawing when she saw them. Anyway, we're watching 300 right now (she hasn't seen it), so I'll catch ya later. Go see the movie, in the least, you can say that you were able to finally see Halloween (albiet a remake) in the theater. That's kind of why I saw it. As for reviews, I may read them, but when it comes to horror movies I typically go by the belief that critics wouldn't know a good horror movie if it bit them in the ass. Sometimes it's all about entertainment, and they cannot see past that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you had seen it, you would have laughed as well...well, if you had seen the movie prior and knew what was going to happen. Oh, btw, we watched TCM this morning...lol, she thought it was stupid and boring. She liked the remake better. Don't watch Hostel, that is the sorriest excuse for a movie I've seen. It had a good premise, but the story went absolutely nowhere. It's wrong because pirate copies generally have shitty quality and you kind of miss out. I watched a downloaded version of one of the Harry Potter movies...much better when I could actually see what was going on. Guess what, it seems Andrew Van De Kamp has finally reached the Featured article removal candidate (FARC) section of the review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but I do find that it is sluggish, kind of like Halloween (which she also thought was kind of slow paced until the final act). I kind of enjoy TCM 2, because it's a little more light-hearted. It's a horror movie, and it has its share of "jolts", but it's funnier. I think the original does come off as very "real", in the sense that Sally's screams just drive you crazy. I kind of invision a lot of girls being that way in that type of situation. Just scream their head off because they don't know what else to do. Oh, what was up with LuciferMorgan? Was it me, or did he come off as kind of a dick about that whole "him" thing? Seemed to me he could have simply said "there's an extra 'him' in the sentence," or just removed it himself if that was his only criticism. I don't know. As for Andrew, this phase of the process is the "delist"/"keep listed" part of the process, where it actually gets voted on. I think I'm going to go ahead and give Jason my support. I plan to add some more stuff when I finally get those other books, but the article is rather comprehensive as is, and other than maybe some personal preference in wording, I think it deserves my support.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see the first and second sequels, they are pretty good. The one you are thinking of is The Next Generation, which Renee Zellwegger and Matthew McConahay (sp). I think the Living Dead series has gotten better (and by that I mean entertaining) with each new film. I really enjoyed Land of the Dead. Romero really got the shaft when it came to payment on those first few films, I was glad to see him get to make more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, depends on the director. I've seen plenty of low budget films I thought they should have saved their money on. I'm kind of interested in how Diary of the Dead is going to turn out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see Land. I liked 28DL. I know a lot of people who didn't, but that was because they walked in expected one thing and got something else. They got something with a lot of story and human element in it, but they wanted zombies. Cillian Murphy was great (as he usually is). Speaking of, have you seen Red Eye?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wes Craven film. You should check that out, it's a good little thriller. One zombie film that I unremorsefully hate is House of the Dead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

RE is good, but nothing can compare to The Evil Dead trilogy. It's in a league all its own. Matter of fact, I have the three posters above my television area. Bruce Campbell is hilarious. I don't know if it every aired over there, but The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. was one of best, short-lived, television series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not your typical western, and it was built on the comedy. ED is weird that way. Inside of a few days, Ash basically goes from being a wimp to being a hero (albeit an asshole hero). I thought they were all kind of funny in their own way, but each successive one became more comedic than the last. I love the inconsistent recaps, lol. Poor Raimi not being able to secure the rights to his own movie. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I've never read the comics, and I don't read comics all that much anyway..as you probably remember. It would probably be interesting enough for a comic, but certainly not for the big screen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you been watching the new Halloween page, or avoiding it so you do not spoil yourself? This guy keep reverting to a plot section that is 1100 words, after I trimmed it to 600, simply because he thinks it's better written.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit I was rude (and that doesn't solve anything), I would think that he (and this is me being immature) started the "rudeness" first. If you read his edit summaries and his comment a couple of sections above where I linked to the appropriate guidelines. I'm currently playing it his way and going through his version and trimming that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the plot he put up, but there were more issues there than he may want to believe. Like starting sentences with "Also" and issues with possesive punctuations. I won't get into the fact that he screwed up the events he was detailing. As for Erik, I would only assume he was answering me based solely on what I was saying, which was biased by my attitude with the situtation. He might have assumed I was dealing with some anonymous editor who just wanted a longer plot, pure and simple. In those cases, when another editor doesn't want to discuss anything, it may be better to leave it alone till later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he trimmed 200 words off the original, and I trimmed about another 200 from that...so we'll see where that leads us. I'm working on Batman Begins right now, but I plan to revamp the reception section of the new Halloween movie afterward. Sorry I dragged you into my petty argument.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Squats not edited since that one day, so I assume he'll be back after the holiday.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I don't know when I'll be able to look over it completely--I have two group projects, a mid-term paper and another big assignment due in the coming week so I'm going to be a bit busy for a bit--but I appreciate you sitting down and watching all that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, I love it. I trimmed the bit about him spending eight years--yada yada--so that it is kept to the pure characterization. But that's great stuff. LOL, don't get me all excited, or I'll fail my classes because I don't do my work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I trust you. If not, I could simply put the DVD in myself and sit through all of it till I saw that part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

25th. Just think, next year will be 30 years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You should write a letter. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just missed it. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You said that what Castle was saying was tongue-in-cheek, but which part? Was it the last bit about him thinking he would have been the better choice, the first bit about them wanting someone better looking or was the whole thing t-n-c?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Good ol' YouTube. LOL. Great place to find stolen movies, television shows and the like. Anyway, it seems pretty good. Maybe I'll pick up those two movies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I got the rest of the Halloween movies in the mail today (that's III-Resurrection), minus Part 4. Part 5 seems to have some good behind-the-scenes docs, one of them I think is even about the mask. I don't know what was up with Part 4, I should get that one by Tuesday. I also ordered the Halloween: 25 Years of Terror documentary, with all the interviews and such so that should help out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I already had all of them on VHS, but what was when I was back home with my parents. I'm a stickler for original box art VHS. I have all the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies in their original box covers. They are, unfortunately, sitting in boxes with the rest of my collection of movies at my parents house. I was kind of concerned that if I brought them to Florida with me, a place I do no plan to live much longer, that something might happen and they'd get damaged or stolen. Now, they really don't make VHS all that often. I remember that Resurrection had a featurette on Rosenthal's glasses-cam stuff, at the end of the film, but that's about it. Part 6 doesn't have a single feature...that poor movie got shafted all the time, but Part 5 has: "Audio Commentary with the Director, Danielle Harris, and Jeffrey Landman."; "On-Set Halloween 5 footage: Rare never-before-seen footage taken on the set" (<--This could probably be the least useful); "Inside Halloween 5: Documentary featuring rare behind the scenes footage, a cut scene, and interviews with Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, Don Shanks, Moustapha Akkad and Rob Draper".----So, that should help, not just with Michael but maybe the film article page as well. I thought it had something on the mask specifically, but I guess I was thinking of something else. Here's hoping that Part 4, when it arrives, has similar features.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If she cared that much she would have returned for Part 6. ;) I like that part about Alba, it made me laugh.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's part of the job, thus she cannot complain when they retcon her movies. She's not Marlon Brando, she can't get millions for 10 minutes worth of scenes. Michael Chiklas(sp) is the best part of those F4 movies, he's the only believable "person" there. I love him in The Shield.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant acting. None of the characters are really all that developed, but at least Thing had a decent actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Part 4 has an Audio Commentary with Ellie Cornell and Danielle Harris, Audio commentary with Writer Alan B. McElroy, Halloween 4/5 Discussion panel, The Making of Halloween 4: Final Cut. Not sure if any will be any good, hopefully the writers stuff will.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, could you help me locate some sources? I'm trying to find some sources for the first three Halloween comics--Halloween, Halloween II: The Blackest Eyes, and Halloween III: The Devil's Eyes--but I cannot seem to find anything for them. At best, get their author, publisher, etc etc information so that I can fill out a primary source citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that source will work. The comics exist, you can find that out anywhere, I just couldn't seem to find the writers and illustrators anywhere; I just wish they had dates attached to them. As for F13: The Series, yes I was. I actually sent Limetolime a message stating that because he moved the page to "Friday the 13th film series". All the literature talk, to me, says that it's more than just the films, because other than the adaptations of the movies, most of the books and comics are not directly related to the films. But, I do plan to put in "The Series" info, as initial conceptions were to have it tied with the films, but it just never panned out that way--plus the lead actor and one of the episode directors came over and starred and directed one of the films. There will also be an opening paragraph, just below "Films" that will recount the development of the original film, and possibly a quick run down of each succeeding film. I haven't decided on that last part yet, except that there will be a paragraph on the development of the original film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't trust that page. The two books I used for Jason's article talk about the series. The series was owned by Paramount, and they explicitely stated that at one point there were going to have Jason's mask in the antique shop. The reason they didn't tie the two series together is because it was working so well as a serialized show, doing villain-of-the-week type of stories. As for the director and actor, that was more of a "hey did you know" kind of thing. We could potentially merge them. That page is almost completely unsourced. I would say we could propose a merger and that if sources can be provide to verify some of the additional information on the comics, then we can just add it to the article. Right now though. I have a 12 page paper due tomorrow, so that is my focus for the immediate future. ;) Also, the page itself is like 8 kb (probably less when you remove the code), I'm sure there isn't that much "new" information in there that isn't already on the franchise page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vaughan's Faith 101

...at Wizard. It's interesting, counts as a source for things like "Lehane", too. Discusses her moral complexity. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The sources you turned up at Talk:List of Angel episodes look excellent. I was wondering, do you think you find some which offer analysis on specific characters as well as episodes (especially Buffy and Faith, as I'm rewriting their pages in my sandbox)? I'm asking because I'm terrible at finding reliable sources myself, all I seem to find are websites selling the DVDS or plot summaries. Anything which establishes the notablity of lesser known characters like Dawn and Xander would be extremely helpful as well. Thanks, and if you're too busy, I'll understand. Paul730 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad my googling was of use :) I recommend you look through Slayage, a peer-reviewed journal for "Buffy studies" first, because there are so many great sources there.

I also used Google Scholar to turn up these sources:

* The book Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale has several chapters devoted to Faith, for example "Also Sprach Faith: The Problem of the Happy Rogue Vampire Slayer" and "Faith and Plato: 'You're Nothing!'"

* The book Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in BtVS also discusses Faith, for example "Patterns of Mortality in Buffy" and "The Containment of Girls' Anger in Buffy"

* "Tomlinson: Responsibility and Murder in Buffy" contrasts Buffy and Faith's views on murdering humans (accidental or not)

* Sex and the Slayer: A Gender Studies Primer for the Buffy Fan analyses Dawn's role as a "Good Girl" (and Faith, of course, is a "Bad Girl"); Xander is analysed both a "Tough Guy" and a "New Man"

Kweeket 06:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Somebody says Slayage isn't a reliable source on the Willow Rosenberg page because it's a blog? Just wondering whether you think it's a reliable source. Paul730 22:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I left on Webwarlock's talk page:

I saw you removed the analysis from Slayage from the Willow Rosenberg article, saying it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability because it is self-published. I had a look at the policy on self-published sources and it does point out that personal websites and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources - but "may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think Slayage qualifies for that exemption, as the site owners, Rhonda V. Wilcox and David Lavery, are published authors in the field ("Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "The Forces: What's At Stake In Buffy The Vampire Slayer?") and many of the articles are copied with permission from other (non-self-published) books. It also appears to have a reputable editorial staff. Kweeket 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Paul. How are you doing? I've seen you and Bignole work together quite a bit. If you're interested in digging up some academic studies, I can help retrieve some of the subscription-only resources from my university databases and get them to you in a ZIP file. I'd be happy to help with that. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail address would be necessary, but you can register a free e-mail address such as Yahoo! Mail. I use such an address myself for registration and keeping e-mails separate from my main account. Do you want me to see about retrieving Buffy-related items from Google Scholar? Anything specific that you could look at? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to help out. I've dug up academic studies for Memento, Aguirre, and Schindler's List. (I'm going to undertake a big task at User:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club -- it's gonna be a doozy.) I've sent you one PDF so far, and more will come. Just busy today and wanted to give you something to work with. I'll follow up with more! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at what you had to read -- it did seem like a lot to take in! Hopefully, since you're a Buffy fan, you should be able to understand all the events that the academic guy mentions. Trust me, though, Fight Club is a bit nastier... I tried to read about Fight Club in relation to the philosophy of space and time last night, but it was just a lot for me to digest. Do you want me to keep sending the PDFs? I can do so (just not tonight, I have to go live the college life), so just let me know! And I'm happy to help a friend of Bignole's! Collaboration's a must if an editor's to accomplish great stuff on Wikipedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

After the Fall panel

Blog.myspace is blacklisted so the link will say "sillybilly.myspace" and you can change it. Ahem.

Gwen, Connor and ... not sure. Possibly Nina or Harmony.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, so not fayr... anyway. Gwen will now presumably become a Black Lightning style character. I can see Connor being dead cool. Sadly there probably won't be any Connor/Dawn interaction anywhere.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was because I misspelled Brian "Bryan" on his blog. Err, by "interaction" I meant "dialogue" lol. And you're right, Victor Mancha is damn cool. In the end I was glad his dad was Ultron and not Magneto - who has too many kids as it is, but some of the other possibilities (like Doom and Electro) seemed entertaining too.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He has a share of grandchildren too. I wonder if Wiccan and Luna will get militant one day. I would love to be a writer on any major comics series - An X-book or a Justice book or something. The fans would hate it, probably. Except one. Me. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would make ONE major character bi. Like League / Avengers material. I wouldn't touch the Big Three of DC or the flags of Marvel. But I'd make possibly a Green Lantern or a Robin bi. The rest would all be sexually ambiguous and flirty. Not as bad as Joss where even the random faeries are lesbian. Oh, and I'd use Batwoman and Question appear more frequently. Wonder Woman has a gay cousin. ANYWAY. Yes, I'll watch it now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(Runaways/Young Avengers are my fave Marvels... after Black Adam etc. :P) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't bother me really. I saw it as a means of storytelling. It wasn't loaded in anyway. I think a fan should detach themselves to just enjoy what they're watching when it's being written well.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you just have to accept canon as canon. Unless for example, after Season Eight, Joss died, and Lynch took over the whole thing... I might consider THAT non canon. But I don't understand what about UPN/a-storyline-some-lameos-don't-like makes it non canon. Meh. There's a thing on in comics at the moment called "Death of the New Gods" where basically all these characters are assassinated by a mystery killer. People are quite pissed off when they're faves die. But when the bisexual/lesbian New God Knockout is killed... it suddenly becomes Lesbian Death Syndrome? Lol. The writer, Tony Bedard, declared he'd never kill another lesbian again. Funny interview.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't recall any Doctor/Rose. 9 or 10? And which page? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Red! The chameleon circuit clearly works in Joss's world.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did sort of suggest it be put up for nomination. I just abstain from voting either way in this case.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided when it was first nominated on account of my knowledge of Wiki policy being limited. I couldn't say anything of worth that Bignole couldn't phrase better. I didn't realise it had gotten ugly. I do remember her being very aggressively opposed to the errr... oppositions, at FAC.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to, but I'd be scared it's still not FA quality.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You can always join me at User:Zythe/Jack lead while we put something together. The good thing about leads is, you don't need to cite stuff unless it's controversial, if it's sourced in the main article. If you decide any points need citing however, it would make sense for the sake of consistency to cite the whole thing.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I had in mind from the start, although I found it hard to summarise. The fact that the character is popular should go there - although citation can be covered in the further section, I should think. Beyond that, what to and not to choose is iffy. The gay stuff could be mentioned... but I think it would take a lot of eyes to get "right", might needs bits about "first non-heterosexual character..." to be moved lower down, etc. It's just picking which bits and in which style to summarise it. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically going to be a case of adding a new paragraph and making sure it doesn't sound repetitive next tot he first two. No one else I know does this with Wiki... I'm such a geek. The coward-to-hero stuff should go in paragraph two, or in three as a comment on the successful introduction/initial arc of the character?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I just didn't wanna go out on a limb and earn a second FAC failure.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So I've been seeing. You pretty much summed it up, you just need to summarize the whole article. You don't need to mention 1 bit from every statement, or even cover every aspect of a section, just some basic understandings. I would look at the key components of each section and tie them together in the lead. The structure of the lead should follow the structure of the article, just take it section by section. Some things will be easier to summarize than others, like Jack being homosexual/bisexual can be stated in a single sentence. Just remember that you don't need to explain things in the lead, just state the facts. Also, before going to FAC, the article will need to be cleaned further. There is repetition of "Jack" so much, pronouns need to come into play somewhere. References are still in the middle of sentences, instead of at the end of punctuations. They shouldn't break up the flow of reading. I've got the sandbox lead on my watchlist, I'll be monitoring it and if I see any place that I may be able to help then I'll come over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw. Nothing to be done about it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okeydoke, Bignole.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And yeah, Paul, I'll be buying #7 on Friday :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you fix ref #60 in the Jack article for me? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How good is your understanding of "fair use"? Would a picture of a Jack action figure qualify? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't know anyone that owns Doctor Who toys.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew

Because I can't be bothered to argue about it, it's a waste of my time. You don't not want the article made better, you want it entirely rewritten when it doesn't need to be. Bignole started the FAR expecting I would fight him every inch of the way, but I'm not going to. I invested hours of my time into that article, and I will not participate in its destruction. Let it be delisted. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reread your first post and I would like to point out that I can hardly be taking an FAR personally if I never contributed to it. The simple fact is, the article went through a long and boring FAC and it has barely changed since then. So I'm not interested in changing it substantially from what it was at the FAC, I can go work on an article that actually needs help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy

That's you. lol. I liked Peter Petrelli. I couldn't stand Nathan (in a good way). I think it's because I don't generally care for politicians, and he certainly acts like a true one. I liked the dynamic between Claire and Peter, it was like they could have been brother/sister instead of uncle/neice--watched Heroes (all of them) Saturday, in case you hadn't picked up on that..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, I didn't realize you hadn't seen it all. From your brief talk of it, I thought you had either watched the DVD or seen the show when it aired (though I don't know if it's still airing where you are--you know how Region 4 is--or if it's out on DVD). I'll admit, Peter's hair is kind of out there, but he isn't snoreville. He's conflicted in his own way. By this time, you've realized that he's an empath, so he has to deal with absorbing people's abilities without a choice in the matter, which becomes a problem later. I think by the time you get to the end, you'll think of Peter a little differently (and you certainly won't think of him as a "good two-shoes" in one of the episodes). Plus, I can relate, because Peter's a social worker (my major) and he works for hospice, a place I have volunteered at before. Niki/Jessica is interesting in the fact that your "dual self" hurts her when she tries to explain it to people--them thinking she has disassociative-identity disorder--and I don't like how her condition isn't explained (you'll know what I mean later). D.L. is useless. He's one character I don't care if they don't return. I like Matt as well; I think it would be cool to hear people's thoughts. I felt bad when he learned about his wife's cheating. It was a good show, but when you get to the end, you really feel like that's it. I mean, they leave it open for the next season, but if they ended the show there, it would have been fine. I'm really curious how they handle season two, because the sophomore year is going to be the real tester.

It is on your watchlist. When you rename an article, you have to wait for someone to edit it again before it will show up. I looked at the move (I saw your new creation when you added it to your page), and your move was the last thing that happened to the article. When someone edits it will pop back up on your list.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to have someone that is noble, and pure in heart, they cannot all by ambiguous in their motives (or blind in their journey). He's interesting because he's really does embody his power; he's empathetic toward people in general--always had been, according to his family. Hiro is great. "I DID IT!!!"..LMAO. Well, you'll learn more about this "split personality" thing later, and once you've seen all the episodes then I'll explain what I'm referring to when I mean there is no explaination (as of yet). Sylar was great. I love how they would only show him in shadow, even when he came to kill Charlie. I think you'll like it when you watch him and Peter go at it (which shouldn't be a spoiler, since Peter is the star protagonist, and Sylar is the star villain). D.L. is just really underused; I really don't care about him. Well, if you read about the show, you'll know who isn't killed off, but it does kind of leave it out there. It's funny, because it's finished, and yet unfinished. As for the spin-off, it's going to only be 6 episodes, which will air during the winter break, so that there "technically" isn't one of those normal gaps where your show goes off for a few months and them comes back with new episodes (I don't know if it's like that where you are). I don't care, because I only watch Smallville on television, and everything else I wait for the DVD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He's the outcast of his family, that's not little. He chooses to help people before he ever knew he had powers, that's more than can be said about most of the "heroes". He's uncannily altruistic, which is very uncommon in this day and age. He travels from New York to Midland, Texas just to save Claire, all on the belief that it will save the world, from the advice of a future Hiro (who he didn't know at the time) who came to him on the subway--he could have easily thought it was just a delusion. Remember the end of the episode you recently saw, where he saves Claire, the first thing he wants to know is if that saved the world. More stands out about Peter than meets the eye. The boy carries the world on his shoulders. I think Hayden and Milo have great chemistry, and it shows in Clair and Peter when they find each other again. In the next episode you'll see more of that.

I liked Charlie, too. I wished she hadn't died. It was nice to see Hiro finally getting a breather. Jackie was such a bitch though, I'm not sure she achieved complete redemption in my eyes. It was nice to actually see that she wasn't like "help me," when she's bleeding all over herself. Yeah, I have to say that I jumped back and forth with hating and liking Mr. Bennett. His moral ambiguity continues. Mohinder? I can't say that he gets better, but he certainly develops more of a spine. Yeah, Isaac is kind of a dick.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, that just proves that there are other characters out there with true "little to them." LOL, I like your characterization of Isaac. It'll be funnier later one when you see his character. Yeah, it's nice to see the little acts of goodness, but even when Nathan does little acts of goodness, I still think "he's a bastard." I hate that, "I'm in denial about who I am, so I'm going to make sure no one can believe in themselves." Part pooper.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I kind of like Peter's empath powers, because you get the best of all the worlds. I know, I know, don't say it..lol. But I think you'll think differently of Peter when you learn what his destiny is. Hiro has a cool power, if he could just learn how to control that teleporting. I love how he teleports to New York, but it's 5 weeks later. lol. Nathan not using his abilities plays into that denial thing. I guess he figures that if he doesn't use them then they aren't really there, thus he is still normal. I agree about the healer thing. I mean, who gets their neck twisted completely around when they are hit by a football player? I get that she's small and fragile-like, and they are football players...so I'm not dismissing the possibility of major injury, but just not twisted around neck injury...they're high school football players.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I won't comment on most of that, but you'll learn a lot in the next couple of episodes. I agree, I couldn't figure out why she stuck her hand down the sink, she knew it was going to get all cut up. The over thing I could kind of see....kind of...where she just goes in to get the stuff and forgets about the mits. But you cannot forget about the disposal, it's kind of loud.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The Smallville pages are on my list of "to-do", but that list is quite large. Yeah, Leonard Roberts went from military guru on Buffy, to disciple of Zod on Smallville, to "nobody cares about you" D.L. on Heroes. I saw the page. I thought the alphabetical order was an interesting approach. The only list of characters that is featured, that I can think of off the top of my head, is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. It relies a lot on the game as a source, but the set-up is good. Generally, you don't put 30 infoboxes in an article, not even a list. Infoboxes are supposed to be for the basic information for the entire article, not for each section. They take up too much space and can end up bleeding into other sections. Since you have villains, you may want to call the page "List of characters," instead of "List of minor characters." This way, you can include special guests, and recurring characters. Unless the list is too large, then you can separate the villains out into their own article. This was where I started to clean up the character articles, but have since stopped to focus on other things. Well, I'm off to bed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just doing the table because of the theme of tables I created with the LOE page and the season page. It may not work. I haven't gotten far enough in the list to see if I'll have trouble. In case you do, there is a way to have images appear on the table--though I've always been skepticle of using images on these pages because it's merely for identification...though that Final Fantasy page gets away with it. If Merrick, Pike and Edna are your only non-television show people, then I would have a section of "Other mediums" (or something like that) for all of them. If you have a lot, then I'd have "Other mediums" (or something like that) with subsections for "Film", "Comics", etc etc. There's nothing that says they cannot be part of the regular list, and you simply identify that they appeared in the movie, comic, etc etc when you are writing them up. If you think a season article for Buffy and Angel would be best, then I'd go ahead and start working on that. You can look at the succeeding seasons of Smallville for examples. Since I haven't rewritten those pages, I basically just took all the trivia and put it on their respective season pages from the episode articles. All you have to do is identify the episode the trivia takes place in. Then I tagged the trivia sections with a "trivia" tag. It just keeps it better organized till they can be rewritten for better quality later. But that's your choice. Speaking of Buffy, I'm surprised you haven't laid an opinion out about the name changing on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the request. I had something I was going to ask you about Heroes, but I've forgotten it now. *Click* I just remembered. Ok, so they've basically said that Zach, Claire's friend, was gay--by saying I mean that Jessica teases him about being gay and Claire says she doesn't have a problem with it, even though he's never actually admitted anything other than he is comfortable with who he is. My question is, do you think he's gay? I don't know what it was, but he just didn't strike me--this may sound so horrible, like i'm saying you can just point at someone and say "he looks gay," but I'll explain what I mean--as gay. He almost looked like he was actually interested in Claire. There was that part where they are talking and Claire is like, "are you flirting with me," or something to that effect, and Zach kind of got a defensive. I mean, if he was gay, he wouldn't have a reason to be defensive, especially when he says he's comfortable with who he is. He just strikes me as someone that was teased as being gay, and just doesn't let it bother him, and doesn't clarify that he isn't gay....you know, if he truly isn't. That make sense?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? I didn't know that. Where'd you read that? That's kind of crappy, and conflicting. If the agent said "no", then why were they still referencing his sexuality as "gay"? I mean, they didn't come out and say it, and the actor certainly wasn't acting as if he wasn't attracted to Claire (who couldn't be attracted to Hayden Paniettere (sp)??). I just thought it was interesting that people kept saying he was gay, yet he never admitted it...but clearly stated that he was comfortable with who he was (kind of negative the Wiki article saying that he was "confused"). I figured that him not acknowledging what other people thought, and never explaining that he was in-fact hetero, was a good support for Claire, who was having trouble trying to figure out who she was and how people would react to her (which I think was his purpose on the show; to show her that it doesn't matter what people think the truth is, just that you know for yourself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the truth is, I think it was about believing in yourself and not about what others think of you. I was more or less curious about what you thought about Zach's ambiguous sexuality. Yeah, it has heated up. It seems to be more about ignoring naming conventions in favor of what is deemed more popular by the fans. Who knows, it'll figure itself out. We can all only say "this is the way it should be" so many times before we just get tired.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. What was the image you wanted to use? Was it for the infobox image, because that one sucks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, outraged fanboy, that's awesome. See what happens with fans and this canon issue with articles. It's funny that you should say that was your pick, because I thought this one was a good one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just making the point that the one you wanted, and the one I liked the most actually looked quite similar. A collage would be nice, but what they created was probably a copyright issue. It's got 11 copyrighted images..lol. I don't know. It's interesting, but if it was good to do, that would be better. LOL, yeah, who cares about Zelda (er...Link). Heck, most people don't even know his name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Doctor Who image is a true collage, meaning that someone cut and pasted all those images together. It's someone's personal work of copyrighted material. I don't know if you can do that legally on a publishing website. I tease about Link, I just think it's funny that society, if you said, "who is Link?", wouldn't have a clue what you are talking about...but if you said, "Who is Zelda?" they would know (even though they would be confusing Link with the Princess in their acknowledgment of knowing who Zelda was). Hey hey, Halloween only have two continuities..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One movie doesn't count as a new continuity. If the remake has another film and they change something, then it can be a new continuity, because it technically follows the continuity established by the first two films. Season of the Witch cannot be considered a different continuity, for the same reason; it's one movie, that literally had nothing to do with any of the other films--it isn't a new continuity, it's a new movie. I agree, H20 made up for the three that preceeded it. HR wasn't that bad, but it certainly wasn't that good. There were parts that I liked, but for the most part, it was kind of cheap.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Ultimate Marvel is a continuing series, not one issue. But comics are weird, because they have "universes" which can all exist at the same time. You usually don't have multiple existing stories in films. I would support a change of names. The book certainly isn't more well known than the film (and it certainly wasn't better....god Michael Crichton cannot write). On the disambig page, all those articles are related to the same series, so it isn't like you have to compete with other topics unrelated to the fictional world. Oh, and don't diss F13. I can sit through those movies more often in repetition than I can Halloween or Nightmare. They don't deny their sillyness. I mean, other than some just plain horrible parts of certain movies, they've all kind of been the same re-hashed tone...which can be tiring if it wasn't for Jason. He makes the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That would have been a good source. But yeah, with F13, it was never about the stories--at least not to the fans--it was about Jason (once you got past the first movie I mean). With Halloween, yes it was about Michael, but it was always more about why Michael did what he did, and that was the way they ran that series. It was always about the psychology of Michael, and that was their downfall in the end, because they couldn't develop it well enough (Curse of Thorn??..lol, might as well have blamed Odin for the killings). H20 certainly made up for a lot; ironically, H20 was directed by Steve Miner, the man we have to thank for Jason's iconic hockey mask. But I think you hit the nail on the head, they are "enjoyable rubbish." You never walked into an F13 film thinking "man, I wonder how they will tingle my synapses," nor did you walk out that way. After The Final Chapter (arguably the best of the bunch), it really became "where's Jason? I wonder how he'll kill those campers now? Come on, show us more Jason!"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I remember that storyline all that well, it's been a long while, but did they say that the curse allowed him to be invulnerable (though he tends to land in a coma often enough) or that it was what drove him to kill his family? F13 has that repeat-value. Not that Halloween or Nightmare don't, just that I could sit through 11 F13 films (including the crossover) more often than I can sit through 8 Halloween (not including the new one since it isn't out on DVD) or 8 Nightmare films. Michael fighting Busta..lol. Yeah that was different. The funny thing is, each of the series produced an actual star in their first films, though I'd say Kevin Bacon and Johnny Depp are probably more "star" outside of their respective franchises than JLC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Check his filmography to see if you recognize any films. I'd list some but it would probably be easier if you looked at all of them. lol. I said it drove the series, not that there weren't films that the focus was elsewhere. H20's "being seventeen" was sort of an explaination of Michael's psychology, but most of the movies were focused around his psychy. I agree that the strongest, and typically best movies on all those series were the ones that focused on those main, recurring, protagonists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

KB's had more critically acclaimed films, plus, it's "Six Degress of Kevin Bacon"...not "Six Degress of Jamie Lee Curtis"..lol  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got only one thing to say, Thank you sir, may I have another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only a couple years older than you, I grew up with the Pie. I still know Animal House though. Funny once, but not a repeat viewer for me. I prefer Van Wilder with Ryan Reynolds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds is hilarious. He's great in "Waiting..." and he basically stole Blade: Trinity away from Wesley Snipes. White Chicks?? That's up there with Big Momma's House.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're crazy. First, Paul Walker isn't funny, and couldn't act his way out of a line. Chris Evans came after Reynolds, and is less funny. His Johnny Storm is the same as his Jake Wyler in "Not Another Teen Movie". He was decent in Cellular, but Reynolds is in a different league. He seems to make everything funny. He's more my type of humor (which I would assume would be your type of humor), which is that sarcastic humor. You should check out Waiting..., it has Justin Long in it as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does Total Film know..lol. Yeah, Evans was a little annoying in F4. I love the Wayans Brothers' Scary Movie movies (which are the first two). After that, they went a little too family friendly for what those movies were. Oh, another you should check out with Reynolds (and ironically with Anna Faris) is Just Friends, it was pretty funny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reynolds is hilarious. I've yet to see a film where, in the least, he was not funny. I'd say no about that review. I mean, the only mention of the name is when they clarify that SMG plays Buffy on TV, and not that the movie was parodying Buffy. I think it's possible that they stole the name "Buffy" (from the show) to mock the character SMG played in IKWYDLS, but we'd need them to actually say that. Even then, you could only say things like "it has been suggested that...", because, I believe, you'd need a primary source to say what the writer/director was intending to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the DVDs? They have some behind the scenes featurettes on there, and character profiles...it could be mentioned there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what we've reached on that page, lol. It seems like a new proposal for a compromise. Anyway, the Season 5 companion won't be out till November (speaking of, the stupid post office was supposed to have delivered Season 4 Companion on the 12th, and it still hasn't arrived). You're in luck that one of the DVD commentaries for season five is for "Thirst" (the episode with "Slaying Buffy the Vampire"..lol). I don't know when I'll get to watching it (haven't even watched the season two ones yet), but when I do you'll be the first to know if there is something that indicates they were referencing the real Buffy (they obviously were, but...you, they have to say it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I only go back to it every so often. I appreciate you coming back though, lol. Let's me know I'm not a "one man crusader".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they are at the bottom of the page, for stylistic reasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I Didn't Notice Before, that's Why I'm Replying Now.

Actually, I am not kidding. One woman actually posted on a fansite a memoir of something that happened to her during Season Six. She had stopped watching South Park, because Kenny had been killed off seemingly permanently. Then one night, she had a dream in which Kenny came and spoke to her. He told her that he would not be gone forever, and he would come back soon. He then asked her to go back to watching the show, and she did. Sure enough, as you probably well know, Kenny did return at the end of that season. Coincidence? Or is there something more to it... remember, if I'm right on this theory, the South Parkites and all the others in that dimension are far more advanced than we are.

By the way, I have absolutely no idea what "original research" is, just that it's illegal here in Wikipedia. Even if the above statement is supposedly "original research", I don't see why you're objecting to it; it's not like anyone mentioned it in the article anywhere. Wilhelmina Will 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Slow down now, there's no need to steam ourselves out. I can see immediately that you're a skeptic, and that there's no point in trying to convince you of my theory. Well alright, until a verification comes up, we'll all work to revert the articles to out-universe style, and I'll stop protesting against those nasty insults at the beginning of each page. But to say that a person's belief is ludicrous, even though some of them are, is, well... judgemental. I'll always believe that the characters of every show and film all exist in another dimension, and ones like South Park, Iggy Arbuckle, and The Simpsons, I'll be forever trying to find. (She waves her hand to signal the discussion is at an end.) Wilhelmina Will 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Preview

Yes, god bless Whedonesque! :) And I know, but if they read it they'd see why it's "official". At least it sorts the real fans from the wannabe fans.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Link link link...*sigh*

As long as it is in a section that talks about that stuff, and the source clearly indicates that is who it is spoofing. The Robot Chicken stuff with Jason was obvious, because they actually called him by name. You cannot get more reliable than them saying "Jason". I don't know about Link, because I haven't seen the episodes (I watched the Jason ones on YouTube). Heck, if you have a secondary source stating it then that's probably even better. So, as long as the section it is in is for that type of information, and you didn't create some "In popular culture" section that only contains that one little bit, it should be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the "sigh" was because it was another problem with Link. It seems you meet a lot of opposition on that article, lol. They don't say "Link", but he looks identical, and there are references to Zelda. It was funny though. If they don't have a popular culture section, then I think there should be one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting my user page of vandalism. I realize that's a common assistance between editors who talk with each other on a regular (and sometimes not on a regular) basis, but thanks anyway. I'll definitely look out to do the same for you. Don't worry about me thanking you every time you revert my user page of vandalism, though; I'll know that you'll feel the unspoken thank you. It's just that since this is your first time doing that for me, I wanted to literally say "Thank you, Paul" and I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

HP

I would ask the same thing of you, why are you re-arranging the article in a way that is non-standard for fiction articles? Judgesurreal777 01:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it would improve the article, go ahead and restore it, I just want to keep this article intact for GA status, and many have been either doing weird stuff or vandalizing it. Judgesurreal777 18:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sob sob

Only second?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was good fun. I'm liking the direction of it so far. I can appreciate that the Faith/golem fight could only happen in the medium of comics. Loved the "mind if I bum a fag" mix-up, laugh out loud moment there. The ending was expected, but overall nice - it does somehow connect back to Buffy, and explains next month's cover. The previews for next month look a bit gratuitous with all the bathing, but I can overlook it. Seems like Joss does have an idea for the Twilight arc. Is Roden the real big bad? Oh, and solicit for issue #10 looks like a nice Buffy/Willow sisterly story thing. I'll reply tomorrow afternoon! Night night. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle Solis

That is definitely what her article should be titled. Consensus is surely for it, as you know. So what do you guys (you, Paul, and you, Bignole) feel is the best route to take in making sure that this article isn't moved from Solis again, or at least in making sure that it isn't as easy to move from Solis again? Flyer22 05:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Friday

Yeah, I figured I could clean up that article easier than rewriting all the other films. I think I'll try and get this to GA and then worry about the film articles. Yeah, I saw that in the television section. I would totally watch that, just because I'd love to see Jason on TV. I mean, Freddy got the spotlight on TV, Jason deserves at least a 13 episode season. I'm wondering how good The Sarah Conner Chronicles are going to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see them explore some Voorhees Mythos. It could be good to incorporate some of the comics, like some flashback episodes of maybe Jason as a boy being picked on by the other kids. Maybe his mom working at the camp. It would also be good to bring in Elias officially for the screen. I like the Necronomicon suggestion. Maybe when he came back he was all grown and so she didn't recognized him, and went on believing that he was dead. Yeah, cameos from past actors are always awesome (speaking of, Dean Cain is on this week, and then Helen Slater will be on two weeks after that). I wouldn't mind a bit of backstory for Chris Higgins and Rennie, since they had experience with Jason before "the films". Other than that, I wouldn't want to see any "people" characters in the show, as you couldn't have them experiencing all these phenomenons as Crystal Lake and still want to live there later on when Jason comes calling. I think you'll need a couple series regulars (let's say 6) so that the show has continuity, with a few recurring characters who pop up to further story arcs and such. With 6 regulars you have the availability to kill off one or two of them toward the end of the season, or after a couple seasons, so that people can be like "damn, I liked him/her...why'd they kill them?"

As for the SCC, I read that it picks up after T2. It runs in like a parallel universe to T3, and that it will pull certain events from T3.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The "friends" that get slaughtered in the pilot would have to get more screentime than the people that survive. This way you think, because you're seeing them more that they were stay around longer. Ah, so make the timeline much later, so that any surviving characters from the films can be incorporated in a way that doesn't horribly break continuity. LOL, yeah, Chris could come back as kind of a pseudo-Jason...like Roy Burns but with much better motivation and psychosis. Rennie, from Jason Takes Manhattan. Remember, her uncle threw her in the lake and she had that delusion (maybe it wasn't) of Jason grabbing her and pulling her down. Yeah, that could be a good ending to the series...but with a better mask (*rolls eyes*..lol).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see it go more, but some shows just wouldn't have enough to go with. I mean, Jason isn't Superman, so you really couldn't stretch out 7 seasons of backstory for Jason like you can Superman. Since you wouldn't be showing Jason all the time, you'd have too many episodes that felt like "filler" to the real story. Exactly, but instead of one Jesse McNally, we'd have like 4 or 5. I say, start out with like double that number, but the survivors turn out to be the ones you think are secondary characters. I would even bill the show as starring all those people that get killed. Kind of like how Allison Mack was taken out of the credits for the Season 4 premiere of Smallville, as her character had been "killed" prior. The mission of the show should primarily be about discovering more about Jason's past and his family, but wrapped in a nice supernatural-Necronomicon (liked that idea) bow. It could be about a group of Jason survivors who live in the supernaturally-plagued town of Crystal Lake. After surviving a confrontation with Jason, the group sets out to find a way to get rid of him. As they do this, they discover a link between Jason and all the other events that happen in the town. This could lead to the discovery that Pamela used the Necronomicon to resurrect Jason, and inadvertantly opened some portal to Hell (or something like that). Then the show could focus on trying to track down the book, in the hopes that it would vanquish Jason back to Hell--Which is obviously wouldn't, but it could, in the least, get rid of the rest of the supernatural things..thus leading to the end of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yeah. That's ok, if they're stolen then we can just say "hey, look here on Wikipedia...we were discussing this well before he made it." It's all a moot point anyway, because the show will probably never come out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(realized the discussion was originally here. Probably time for an archive..lol). Anyway, the mention of the show will be brief, to the point of mentioned the connection and maybe a bit of development. I'm procrastinating too...doing it right now in fact. It's due tomorrow and I still have to do my research for it. Yeah, I can get long-winded with my arguments. Sometimes I argue for the sake of arguing, just because it's fun. Though, at the moment, I should be focusing on my paper and not arguing about whether "X-Files 2" needs an article. Hopefully I'll get it done before this evening.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

An article

You interested in helping me improve Jaime Sommers (Bionic Woman)?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I was opposed to any potential merge, but the original article was a train wreck and I think other editors had the whole "But if Wikipedia is a collection of all human information, then they should count as separate characters!" *sigh* But yes, my plan is to expand one so it has a full "conceptual history" (like the publication history in a comics article) then merge them into one article, with subheadings like "Acting" and "Writing" to help discuss the differences between the two portrayals. Should I use a sandbox for this?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, just TV movies and series based, based on a book about a dude. Thankfully she's a hot topic at the moment, especially with feminist theorists, so the article should come along rapidly.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start a sandbox when I get home (I'm at college), but I will be keeping tags on the new article (reverting in-universe fancruft, keeping a rough skeleton visible to the general Wiki public XD) and yes, it would be great if Jaime Sommers could become an FA but I've never had an FA before, so I don't know if I can do it on my own! :P I gotta work on Jack, some more. I'd love to have all these advocacy character bios under my belt - feminist icon heroine, bisexual action hero, etc.! Sourcing and all that... it'll come in useful one day! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that User:Zythe/Jaime Sommers is partially underway, can you come up with a better section header than "writing"?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10