Talk:Friday the 13th (2009 film)

Untitled

Sequel movie.88.232.139.85 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cinemascore

"CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade cinemagoers gave the film was a "B-minus" on an A+ to F scale,[56] with exit polls showing that 51% of the audience was male, and 59% was at least 25 years old or older.[57]"

Actually, that link was talking about He's Just Not That Into You, not Friday the 13th. Even then, I don't see anything there about the B- rating. Removed it. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.145.151 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does. Here is the quote:

"That $42.2 million sum is the top first-weekend figure for any movie in the nearly 30-year-old "Friday the 13th" series -- including the 2003 mashup, Freddy vs. Jason, which premiered with $36.4 million. In fact, the original "Friday the 13th" movie, from 1980, grossed just $39.7 million during its entire run, not adjusted for inflation. In addition, this marks the best bow ever for a horror remake, besting "The Grudge's" $39.1 million debut gross. And it arrives despite a weak B- CinemaScore review from an audience that skewed male."

The second part is quoted in the second source, which states:

"Friday the 13th was marketed as the event of all slasher movies and ads promised a rollercoaster rush. Horror can appeal to both genders equally, making Friday the 13th more of a date movie in many circles than He's Just Not That Into You or Confessions of a Shopaholic, which each heavily skewed female. Distributor Warner Bros.' exit polling bore this out, showing an audience composition of 51 percent male and 59 percent 25 years and older."

So yes, it does actually say those figures are related to Friday the 13th.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cast

Yes this section is actually needed per MoS. The article passes GA with cast intact. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Please read the MOS. WP:MOSFILM#Cast: "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section." That's if you want a table in either the Plot or cast section. We don't need a table, because the cast is too small to warrant it. Everyone of importance is covered in the infobox, the lead, and the plot and the cast section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole:, Wikipedia has been designed for the viewer. I came to this article and the original Friday the 13th looking for cast members, I was unable to find the list, so this article therefore has issues. WP:MOSFILM allows for the addition for the cast in cases which casting has not been expanded such as this. Please let me know if you have any issues, We can have an RfC if you would like. Also interested in knowing your rational for the removal of cast. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If you just want a cast list, go to IMDb. The cast here is listed in multiple locations. MOSFIlM allows for a basic list when you have a stub article. This is not a stub article, and it has the cast covered in other areas. The article pass GA status without a basic cast list. Simply wanting to know who is in the film is not a reason to have the list, especially when you can get that from actually reading the article. How can you say, "casting has not been expanded such as this"? There is clearly a casting section in this article. It's under Production. You can't miss it. Are you confusing Friday the 13th (1980 film) with Friday the 13th (2009 film)? The former did not have a casting section (originally - but I have added it now). This page does and has had a casting section for years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Why would I go to iMDb, no guideline on Wikipedia states remove cast roles. WP:MOSFILM never stated and cast section is inappropriate, in fact it states:

"When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section.

Specifically, "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed", suggests that while a subsection of cast may be removed, a detail list is still preferred. Also this is beneficial in the interest of maintaining traversability. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Except the cast section is maintained in the Casting section. There is no need to have a list when you have prose. The list is found in the infobox and the lead. Why do you need it a third time? It does NOT say that a detailed list is preferred.

It says, "A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles." - This is NOT a stub article. It says that a cast section "MAY" be maintained. It does not say that a cast list is mandatory, nor needed. In this case, when you're dealing with a horror film with a very small cast, there is no need to duplicate a list that is present in multiple locations already just for the sake of "traversability". This article is structured to be professionally written, which means that it values prose over basic lists or tables. The cast IS listed in the Casting section, with real world content connected to them. It's the logical place to find a cast, because casts are part of production, not an independent entity. You don't need a list just for the sake of having it.

P.S. You don't need to ping me. I have the page on my watchlist.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok Bignole, I am afraid your wrong here. All Wikipedia guidelines say may be, because everything is subject to change given specific conditions. An experienced editor such as yourself should know to avoid that argument. I read the part regarding stub articles, unfortunately you chose to disregard the second part which says guideline When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, specifically When the article is in an advanced stage of development which is what this applies to. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how am I wrong? Yes, they all say "may" because it isn't a mandatory (that doesn't make me wrong in what I just said). Again, it may be maintained that way. You're reading it as if it's a definitive statement that must be held to, when in fact (again) it's a guide. It's specifically unspecific to allow for this very thing. The reason that is written that way was because people wanted to create basic cast lists in articles that had casts mentioned in other areas. You're holding on to the ideal that a bulleted list is ideal for a horror film that has like 7 actors in it total (to be clear, I'm speaking horror films in general). They are contained in the casting section and the plot section. Why exactly do you need a bulleted list when every actor is listed next to their role in the plot section (which isn't long, and you can clearly see them all without actually having to read it). Again, amazingly no one had an issue when the article went through GAC 4 years ago (and the setup was the same).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The term may is not a valid reason for exclusion. A rational explanation as to why this article does not need a cast section is a better argument. The list of the cast appears to have validity here if a viewer is looking for roles, an organized list is more comprehensive, it is as simple as that, WP:MOSFILM makes it clear that a Cast section is not only allowed, but preferred. It looks like plenty of people have contested this, given the history of reverts warring when the cast section is added. It looks like you are the only person who has an issue with a Cast section as well, no other editor has reverted its addition. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither is, "I was looking for it". If someone came to an article looking for a rating for a film and didn't see it, that isn't a reason to start including them. If someone comes to this page looking for the cast, they can find them in the lead, the infobox, the plot summary, and the casting section. You actually haven't provided an argument for why an entire, duplicating section needs to be created. Where exactly does it say "cast list is preferred"? I must have missed that section, so please show me where it says that. Also, don't mistake "other people haven't reverted it" for a lack of agreement. The people that have tended to come here to "add it" are new editors that see something somewhere else and have no understanding of the guideline and that 1) basic cast lists on developed articles are not advised and 2) developed articles can display casts in other ways that is just as sufficient while also allowing for more encyclopedic content. Again, it oddly wasn't brought up in the GAN. You'd think if it was really so important it would have been brought up there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If the cast is small, already covered in a Casting section and included in the infobox, then there's no need for another Cast section, list or otherwise. Lapadite (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Which case would this be? Small cast consists of 3 to 4 or less I would think. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, I wouldn't say that 3 or 4 is a small cast (it is, but I wouldn't say that 7 is a large cast when it comes to horror films). Again, they are listed in multiple spots, and if you are looking for "organization", they are listed next to their character within a couple of lines of the plot. You don't even have to read the plot section to clearly see the actors and their characters. That's a pretty small list to accomplish that, even considering that half of them are gone within 20 minutes of the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I endorse including a cast list. It is significantly better navigation to provide readers a list of actors and their roles. Traditionally, cast lists were opposed because it creates too much white space. However, there have been alternative approaches developed to address that, such as multi-column listing or limiting a list to a specific set of actors and grouping more background actors into paragraphs. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would we create an entire section for a basic cast list, when that is already done in the plot?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section needs a cast list. I'm sure that not every single important character is listed in the plot. Cast lists are informative and aren't really gonna hurt anything if we add one. Scream4man (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually they are. If they aren't important, then they wouldn't be in the plot section. I think it's ridiculous to create an entire section for a cast when in reality, it's covered in other areas. At best, I don't like this either but it's better than an entire section devoted to duplication of information, there could be a basic table created in the casting section (ala Fight Club, which doesn't have a "cast section" - this is what it would look like).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sequel?

There is mention of an upcoming sequel which is mentioned and referenced on the Friday the 13th wiki and yet there is no mention of it here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's on the franchise page, where it belongs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Friday the 13th (2009 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chud.com/8452/EXCLUSIVE-PAGING-TOMMY-JARVIS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213220911/http://www.moviesonline.ca:80/movienews_16407.html to http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16407.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927011926/http://images.apple.com/itunes/charts/movie-rentals/friday-the-13th-2009/ to http://images.apple.com/itunes/charts/movie-rentals/friday-the-13th-2009/

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) 09:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Friday the 13th (2009 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Friday%2Bthe%2B13th%3A%2BThe%2BProducers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612181840/http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/platinumdunes/ to http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/platinumdunes/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Friday%2Bthe%2B13th%3A%2BDerek%2BMears/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16407.html

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) 06:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Need help to find 1 similar film

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#What_is_the_name_of_this_horror/slasher_film_made_at_2000~2007?

THANKS

Editor-1 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Inflation number

The info about comparing its opening to the original films release seems like original research to me. ★Trekker (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Original research would not be basic math. There is no interpretation going on. It's an objective truth because we have inflation adjusters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Its still original research regardless of how objectively true it is. Its an observation done without a source from outside Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you figure it isn't from outside Wikipedia? The box office figures are from BoxOfficeMojo and the inflation calculator is from another website that tracks inflation across time. Per WP:CALC: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. It further states that comparison of statistics should not be done with data that has different methodologies. There isn't a different methodology. Thus, there isn't an issue when comparing the figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok that sounds reasonable. I guess if calculations are ok and the Tom's Inflation website is reliable there is no problem.★Trekker (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Tom's Inflation score tells you where they get the inflation data. In theory, one would only need to check other inflation calculators and compare that the numbers were marginally the same (changes can exist depending on how my decimal points one uses, but overall the figure is the same).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)