Talk:Halloween H20: 20 Years Later: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:10, 24 August 2007

Film Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Horror Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I moved this to the correct title. --Myles Long 21:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was NOT a paramedic in this movie!

{spoiler}

I changed the references to "Halloween: Resurrection" in the description of this film because I don't feel it's appropriate. I think that when discussing the plot of each film individually, we shouldn't use the retcon established in the following sequel. In the plot of Halloween: H20, it is definitely supposed to be Michael that Laurie decapitates at the end of the film, and not a paramedic. That idea was established to allow for another sequel after the success of Halloween: H20. VertigoXpress 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to start an edit war over this, but it is not logical to have an encyclopedia page on a film and take into consideration it's sequels when discussing the plot, especially when the plot device in the sequel is a retcon. Look up that word and maybe you'll see what I'm saying here. When Halloween: H20 was made, they absolutely did not intend that guy in the mask at the end to be a paramedic, it was intended to be Michael Myers. The paramedic gag was made up by the script writer of Halloween: Resurrection. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. VertigoXpress 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be noted in the page though for it plain and simply wasn't Michael. SOADLuver 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it wasn't Michael...in Halloween: Resurrection. In this film, it was Michael. The script of Halloween: H20 makes no mention of the switch referred to in "Resurrection", so when discussing the plot of this film you have to take it on its own terms. I'm not against mentioning somewhere else in the article that the sequel established a retcon about it NOT being Michael at the end. However, the actual plot of the film shouldn't contain references to the sequel, especially since in this case, the idea of it being a paramedic in Michael's clothes and mask was an afterthought. Can we compromise and put it in the continuity section? Wanna write it? VertigoXpress 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I added the info myself just to show you what I meant. If you want to edit it, go ahead. VertigoXpress 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm satisfied thank you for being reasonable. SOADLuver 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed quote

Someone thankfully just removed this before I could, quoted here for public amusement: "KMBC-TV called it quote "Sensational......., Smart and Non-Stop Scary......, Jamie Lee Curtis Truimpt Return....., and Finally a Sequel.......related/base/lives up to the original!!!!!."

If an American TV station actually had English that bad ("related/base/lives"??), I wouldn't consider them or their opinions a reliable source of anything. Not that that's even remotely likely. Indium 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ::::No I'm satisfied thank you for being reasonable. [[User:SOADLuver|SOADLuver]] 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
+== Removed quote ==
+Someone thankfully just removed this before I could, quoted here for public amusement:
+"KMBC-TV called it quote "Sensational......., Smart and Non-Stop Scary......, [[Jamie Lee Curtis]] Truimpt Return....., and Finally a Sequel.......related/base/lives up to the original!!!!!."
+If an [[KMBC-TV|American TV station]] actually had English that bad ("related/base/lives"??), I wouldn't consider them or their opinions a reliable source of anything.  Not that that's even remotely likely. [[User:Indium|Indium]] 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)