Jump to content

Talk:Halloween (2007 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rfl0216 (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 23 October 2022 (OneClickArchived "Ending of the movie" to Talk:Halloween (2007 film)/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleHalloween (2007 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Shedding some light on the plot confustion...

The ending of the movie where Michael is shot in the head by his sister is the one that appears in theaters, and should be considered the final cut. However, in the weeks before the film's theatrical release, an internal workprint was leaked onto the web, with several changes including an entirely new ending.

In this preliminary version, Michael appears and pulls Laurie from the car a few minutes after Michael gets shot three times by Loomis. At that moment, the police arrive in force. Michael drags Laurie to the walkway in front of the house, until Loomis convinces him to stop. Michael is holding the knife and Laurie, and Loomis is attemping to talk Michael out of killing her. Loomis says that he is the one that deserves to die, because he "Failed you, Michael". Michael drops the knife and lets Laurie go. Loomis walks Laurie away from Michael toward the police cars. At this point, Michael is a few feet behind them and slightly out of focus. It appears that he may have moved forward slightly after them (hard to tell the way the shot was, but I assume something must have provoked the next action). After he moves, the police simultaneously beging emptying thier guns into Michael. So Michael is gunned down, Loomis and Laurie both live. The video ends with the audio of Loomis's initial interview with young Michael, where the boy inquires about Loomis's accent, and Loomis sort of laughts off the question. In the new context of the final scene, this suggests that Loomis may have prevented everything my being more receptive to Michael's question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.65.29 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

The critical reception of this movie was poor and some fanboys apparently want to gloss this over. According to rottentomatoes it received 22% positive reviews which means almost 8 out of every 10 reviews for this film were negative. JpGrB made the unintentionally comedic statement about the section of "too bad it's not just talking about rotten tomatoes" which makes it sound like rt is one opinion. Rottentomatoes is the best source we have for giving an overview of critical reception of a movie and this movie clearly had a poor critical reception. Pointing out that it received some or any positive reviews does not change this. 72.64.165.157 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the perfect solution, remove it entirely. We don't need to qualify information that readers can do for themselves. If a film has a 22% approval rating, then it should be obvious that critics didn't like it, and there's no reason to restate the obvious.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Done.--CyberGhostface 23:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I never even thought of that. 72.64.165.157 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No biggy (pardon the pun on my name). Most of the time the best ideas come from group thinktanks. You say "this doesn't work," and it triggers in the mind of someone else a new idea.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly enough, this film did not do too well in my town. I went and seen it on opening night, and there were a lot of hardcore Halloween movie fans there at the taping. Even one of course you guessed it, dressed up like the Shape himself. I guess every town has a guy like that. When I went in to see it, I knew I was in for a totally different film in a way and that's how I went in to see it. Then while attempting to watch it, I found myself falling to sleep, and being startled by some people walking out of the theatre even the guy dressed up as Myers. When I saw this I at least had to ask him why he was leaving and his quote: "This piece of **** is what Rob Zombie gives us isn't worth being called Halloween. I'd rather be watching Halloween III than this." He did have a point too. Only the first half of the film was interesting. Too many of the same actors being used over and over by the same writer/director gets old fast. What really killed it was the second half. Perhaps being left as a prequel would have saved it?--Charles-Joseph 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for the guy dressed up to see the movie (as stated by person above) it must have been the most dissapointing hour of his life. i hated the remake and i hate zombie for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.104.48 (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an Alternate Ending

Since the bootlegged version definitely exists, would anyone be opposed to simply adding a subsection for it under plot? I think this talk page shows it is notable and common enough to warrant mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capi crimm (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's an illegal copy of a film that was not distributed. There is no press for this film, thus there is no notability for said film. This talk page shows a bunch of IP address (which we cannot verify if they aren't all the same person) talking about a film they stole (which wasn't even the real film). Also, a dozen people talking about a film hardly qualifies as anything. It isn't an alternate ending to the movie, it was a reshot ending to the movie. What you need to do is find reliable sources discussing why he reshot the ending, and then you can put that in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bignole. It isn't very notable at the current state. If it released on the DVD extras or something like that, it would be notable.JpGrB 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Small spoiler regarding Workprint Version] I aree with Bignole as well. I've seen this version and to me it is far better, and I believe it almost seems like it could be passed off or attempted to be passed off almost like an unrated version of the film. One of the main reasons is the big "rape" scene in the asylum. Anyway, a lot of people over at www.halloweenmovies.com message board have also been discussing this issue as well. From what they have said, it was a Workprint of the film that was purposely leaked over the internet to get more attention on the film. Weather or not that is the case is yet to be determined. Perhaps we'll be able to see it when it hits the stores apparently on December 18th of this year. Until then, I do agree with Bignole on his statement above though. --Charles-Joseph 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list

Is this really necessary? Anyone important is mentioned in the plot summary, and we have a link to IMDb if people want a full list. What's our reason for keeping it here? Paul730 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contemplated removing it. It's grown to basically look like an IMDb list. I think people just got mentioned because of the fact that they were in other Zombie movies, and not because they had significant roles. Plus, it appears to be just a breeding ground for lots of IU information; there doesn't appear to be any true casting info. I'd support its removal. The actors and characters are already mentioned in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to remove it. These lists are kinda pointless; they don't tell us anything the plot summary can't. I mean, is listing the guy who played "security guard #3" or whatever really encyclopedic? Afterall, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If actual information on casting does crop up, I'd gladly have a "casting" section, but not as it currently stands. Paul730 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fair to remove a cast list if there's a link to IMDb and all cast members are mentioned in the plot summary...it just seems like a repetitive waste of space. Oh, and something else about the cast; I added a Calico Cooper reference to the DVD Release section. She was in a deleted scene that got cut.Long Away May (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is way off.

The whole thing that Michael Myers, Laurie the knocking into the railing ending is way off (like person saying that the closest plant to earth is Pluto). Dr Loomis does not get kill. For any body who watch the movie knows that both Dr. Loomis and Laurie live and Michael get killed by police.

Someone is not getting there facts right. SO please grab the Rob Zombie's Halloween and watch the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin001001 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok people, how about we act like law abiding citizens and actually watch a legal copy of the movie. Please read the discussions that take place above. What you saw was a workprint version of the movie, not a final cut. It was equivalent to a test screening, except someone stole it and leaked it on the internet. What is in this plot section is exactly what appeared in the theaters, I'd know because I paid to see it myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrated DVD version

I just picked up my copy of the unrated version, and it came as a two-pack with another film called Partyline. I'm contemplating as to whether or not add this tidbit to the DVD section since there's no article on it here on Wiki, and there's nothing in the IMDB database. Has anyone even heard of this film?--The Scourge (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The film the article is about is the only film that gets free plot publishing, anything else really needs third-part sources covering the topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, wait. You sort of lost me here. Are you talking about Halloween, or Partyline? Because there isn't an article for Partyline, from what I can tell.--The Scourge (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which means that it probably is nothing more than a short for the DVD. I would try and find a third-party source describing it. It doesn't really seem all that noteworthy. It's like saying "there are behind the scenes documentaries", which aren't that relevant to the article itself, unless there was some context behind it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I figured it had some credibility since it was rated R. Plus, it seems a little too long for a short film (91 Mins.). It's probably just me.--The Scourge (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be an interesting addition, if someone writes about it. I mean, you could end up with a mini-film article in this article. I just don't think simply stating what the plot of the film is does for this article, since apparently no one has heard of the film--short of it being released with this unrated movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that the extra DVD that comes with the Unrated Director's Cut varies as I got Pulse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.179.191 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halloween (2007 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Plot, "during sex, Michael murders Paul and attacks", attacks who? You need to be clear. In the Development section, there's no need repetition of "Rob Zombie", mentioning it once makes it clear who you're talking about. Same section, this sentence ---> "On December 22, 2006, Malcolm McDowell was announced to be playing Dr. Loomis", is it missing a complete sentence?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Dates need to be unlinked, per here. According to this every film article should have a cast section, so I suggest one is added to the article. In the Reception section, there's no need for "Rotten Tomatoes" to be italicized, since its a website and per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Reference 10 and 47 are missing Publisher info. According to this, there are two dead links.
    Half-check. Reference 16 has a red link and Reference 45 is dead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The seem to be fine to me, plus the link checker tool doesn't note them either.84.83.87.34 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Not very good, per the article's history page.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Image:Halloweentrio.jpg has a weak FUR.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1b) Prose can be cleaned up, I'll let you know when I do that. You are misreading the FILM MOS guideline with regard to cast listing. It says, "Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." The key word is "may be". A simple list of the cast, which is not only provided in the plot section, but also in IMDb, is unnecessary. There was not a lot of casting information out there for the actors (which is typical of a horror film that isn't historical, ala it isn't the original Halloween). So, no, a cast list is NOT mandatory.
Well, just seeing from other film articles having cast sections, I figured that maybe it'd be useful to add one. I guess that doesn't work in this case. So, check for the no usage of the cast section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and get to those dead links after my class tonight. What edit war are you referring to per the article's history? We've had quite a few reverts to things to the article in the past couple months, but I'm not aware of any actual "edit war" going on. Please explain your reasoning.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the image of the trio go. It doesn't add anything to the section. It's just an image of Zombie, Faerch and Mane (in make-up), which should really be supported by critical commentary if it is needed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The choice is yours if you want the image to be gone. I can't make that decision, since I'm not a main editor for in this article. What I'm referring to the article being stable is that there's a whole lot of reverting vandalism and stuff, I'm not necessarily referring to "edit wars", that's just how the GA template is set-up. Also, take your time with the article, there's no rush for you to get the comments I left at the review. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a passer-by to this article because I've just watched the film for the first time. I've made a few small tweaks to the article in response to the GA review, in an attempt to help out. Like Bignole, I'm not a fan of cast lists. However, perhaps a section about the main characters and cast in prose form would be useful, in the style indicated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information? The two sentences in the 'Development' section about McDowell could be moved to such a section, and you might also be able to get similar information about the casing of the others? The JPStalk to me 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a casting section, tell me what you think.--Music26/11 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start! (Remember that I'm not the GA reviewer, so my comments are independent of that.) It's a little short, though, and if it stays like it is, I'd probably lose the subheading. Do you think you'd be able to expand upon it? Halloween_(1978_film)#Casting is pretty good, and it's probably a good idea to replicate that article's structure for series continuity. The JPStalk to me 09:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of the above statements have been answered, maybe the Casting section requires a bit expansion, but it's not neccessary.--Music26/11 10:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Okay, this just popped up onto comingsoon.net: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=8288 It says there will be a sequel to Rob Zombie's Halloween, so maybe we should put some info in the page about this. 24.76.185.79 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay, they are reporting on what other people are saying, which is itself based on a scooper that "talked" to Akkad. Let's wait for official announcements. Even when that does occur, that information will be best placed on the franchise article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akkads' saying that the film is going from direct to dvd to theaters. It's on Google news. It's on a few more websites now.--VampireKen (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been officially announced. It was announced at the 30 years of terror convention.--VampireKen (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

When Michael Myers escapes, what happens to the girl that the two security guards were raping in his room? Is she killed too or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.51.198 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Michael killed her. The only reason why he killed the two guards was because they were trying on his masks. But the film doesn't show what happens to her.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween sequel Article

Someone tried to make a sequel article a few weeks ago. The never started article was removed however It is time to start one. A poster for the film has been released. I'm not promoting anything just mentioning it. It's on all the Halloween myspace sites and Rob Zombie's also. Here are the links. These although they are myspace profiles are confirmations that there is a sequel being made for sure. Rob Zombie is making this film also. Rob Zombie's: [1] and Halloween Movies's: [2]. This is enough to start a article. Since production has begun it is definitely being made.--VampireKen (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you seem to have found out already. How do you people get this info so fast? I guess I don't look at Zombie's myspace posts--VampireKen (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NFF. We only create articles for future films when they are released, or their production itself has become notable. Since the sequel has yet to actually enter production (i.e. it's not notable, there is no need for a page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I just got the myspace update from Rob Zombie's myspace blog. (the real one). Just checking to see if it was on here yet. So when does an article on it start up? When the production photos are released or trailer or closer to when the film is actually coming out? I'm not making it, I'm just wondering--VampireKen (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either when the film is released, or when we have enough production information to warrant separating it from the franchise article. In other words, we we have far more than that little paragraph we have now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of information (see "'Halloween' Sequel Gets Official Release Date," "Danielle Harris in Talks to Return in 'H2'," "Spoiler-filled Casting Breakdown For 'H2'," etc. from which to build an article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All one-line blurbs that do not constitute "notable production", especially since production has not even started.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=28735418
  2. ^ http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=126058318

New movie same series

I have just reverted an edit that someone made to the article. The edit was removing preceded from the info box. They said it was a new series. It is but this is part of the halloween series in general. I have to go, could someone explain this. So if others try it they don't get confused.--VampireKen (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A way to explain it is like this. The original story line is finished. but Halloween and H2 (what it's being called now or a working title) though remakes are still part of the Halloween films. There is talk of a trilogy but that is just rumor and if true it would be a few years until a third film is released. Then there could be talks of separating it into two series. That's not a proposal by the way to anyone that reads this. An easier way to say it is like how Halloween 1, 2, 7, 8 are one series of films. 4, 5, 6 are another storyline. and 3 is a stand alone film. but I heard that a remake of it was released a few years ago under a new title. That's not important though now. Not based on any facts, the trilogy (if made) will mix all the story lines into three films. Or Laurie will become the killer. Now it sounds like a forum. but it's all one big series unless it is declared separate.--VampireKen (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is no need for this section on the talk page. I'm fairly sure it's been covered somewhere. But overall, the best way to put it is that it's all the same "series", even though it's not the same "canon". --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example why sequel stays off page and no article

Bignole and JpGrB are telling people over and over again NO MENTION OF SEQUEL IT'S NOT OUT YET! Well if it enters production hold off until it actually comes out. A very good example is Wes Craven's A Nightmare On Elm Street. During production the studio ran out of cash which delayed production for about a few weeks or a month. They might have been promoting the film the film almost got canceled. Although the film was released it almost never made it to theaters. Another example was the Halo movie (which an article was created for). Producers were confirmed actors were trying to get in. The studio was confirmed. Guess what? They could not make a movie because they could not make a story for the film. So the film got canceled. What if they can't decide how they want to continue the storyline in H2 and completely cancel the movie?(they'll find a way but what if?) The reason I'm writing this is to give examples of popular films that have gotten canceled. Listen to them. It could happen to H2.--VampireKen (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just when the film is released, it's when it's pre-production, or production itself, is notable. What is at the franchise article in the "future" section is all well and good, but not substantial enough to get it's own article, let alone be mentioned here. A remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is supposedly in the works too, but their "future" section is just fine for that. --HELLØ ŦHERE 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section too long?

Does anyone else think so? Jabberwockgee (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. It's summarzing opinions. Do you want to only include 4 people?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death List

Need to make a whole page on all the characters that died in all the filmsBig Eazy 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonsOfAnarchy1982 (talk • contribs)

Death lists are unencyclopedic. That is why we don't put them in articles. They hold no actual value to the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to read or edit a Halloween death list, there's one at the Horror Movie Wiki. They're not suitable for this site because they are in-universe plot information with no real world context.  Paul  730 14:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the sequel

There was edit before that said the official title was H2: Halloween 2. Yes it was called that on ET but not in the trailer the trailer only calls it "H2". here's the trailer: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810061258/video/13140292 --Darkness2light (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be what they are calling the film, so that should be what is listed here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cream of the Crop" or "Top Critic" Rotten Tomatoes score being used in reception section

I removed the score of the "Cream of the Crop" (now called "Top Critic") critics from the article due to a consensus by WikiProject Film members that it is generally not an appropriate score to use. 2 main issues are at hand:

1 - the sample size is too small to be useful when generalized and
2 - as per discussions here and here, the score of the "Top Critics" section is different in different regions of the world.

Picking a critic to be included in the "Top Critic" section is based on some set criteria but also allows for subjective input "as determined by Rotten Tomatoes staff." Since European readers will always be directed to the UK version of Rotten Tomatoes website and Australian readers to the Australian website, the score of the Top Critic section could be much different on each website. Since this is an English encyclopedia and not an American encyclopedia, it would present too much of a US-centric point of view (even if this is an American film) to state that "the film was received thusly by top critics" all the while a UK-based reader might see a different number when clicking the reference link. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on deleted scenes?

In the version im currently watching two employees at the sanitarium in which Michael is being held, in a very graphic scene, rape a presumably insane young woman in front of Michael attempting to coerce him into joining in. They put on his mask while performing the rape which elicits a violent response from him and leads to his escape. Can someone enter information on this and other deleted scenes into the article? I think it is relevant 74.190.83.54 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're watching the Director's Cut of the film, not the theatrical cut of the film. We don't typically just list the different scenes that appear in different versions, unless there is notability to it. As, a lot of the time, special editions and director's cuts do have different, extended, or sometimes fewer scenes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood fraud perpetuated, again

Wanna know why people are SO misinformed? Dr. Loomis buys a handgun in a retail store; film ignores 72-hour wait in 'real life' Illinois; Doctor carries concealed; 'Real life' Illinois does not allow open OR concealed carry (though hopefully that may finally change soon) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois#Recent_events.

While 'artists' claim 'artistic license' and that 'this is only a movie', folk's perception is affected by these false portrayals. Just like 'Hollywood guns' that never require reloading. Nearly EVERY film is propaganda for the gun-control crowd. And, MOST hypocritically, most of the 'big stars' that profit from using guns and violence in their films are rabid pro-control freaks in 'real life'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.249.109 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film also shows lots of people being killed, ogling scantily clad women while unaware they are being spied on, stalking, rape, victimization of the main character as a child... all of which are presumably not allowed in Illinois too. Are you just trolling, or are you GENUINELY OK with dramatizations of these but wish for greater realism on gun issues in film? MrZoolook (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Evans murders

I just read about this case where a teen named Jake Evans killed some of his family after being "inspired" by the way Michael killed his sister with ease. I think this would be an interesting fact to add somewhere in the article. Sources - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268264/Jake-Evans-How-teen-killed-mother-sister-Halloween-remake-left-inspired-amazed-murder-family.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/jake-evans-confession_n_2552173.html --Matt723star (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that it's all that relevant. It certainly isn't a high profile case, and there isn't a string of murders committed because of the film. It seem slike undue weight being placed on a single incident.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, I think it's entirely relevant to the page, because his murders were committed due to an obsession with the movie (or the scene itself), and he's confessed that it influenced him. This is sort of like the murder that happened when The original Halloween II was released, and it's mentioned on that page as well. --Matt723star (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a big difference. In the original case, it was the lawyer who charged the film caused hallucinations in his client, and it sparked a lot of discussion regarding media violence influencing kids. In this case, we have a kid "claiming" that the film influenced him. There is nothing else there. It received no other publicity. If we documented every time a criminal "claimed" to be influenced by some book or film or TV show then we'd have a whole page devoted to any one film. Please read about undue weight, as well as about "other pages".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Halloween (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Halloweeen (2007) remake" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Halloweeen (2007) remake. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 05:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halloween_(2007_film)&oldid=1117754166"