Jump to content

Talk:Halloween (1978 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHalloween (1978 film) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 16, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 7, 2006Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 21, 2007Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
January 1, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

trivia about Italian edition

[edit]

Do you think those information more pertinent to the Italian page or to the English one?:

The Italian public at time the movie was released there (22 July 1979) wasn't yet aware of what hallowe'en is for the Anglo-Saxon countries, so the characters, in the Italian edition, hallowe'en was translated "the day before Hallowmas" or "witches' night". The movie itself was renamed "Halloween-La notte delle streghe" (=the witches' night) in order to make understandable the title to then-average Ausonian[1] audience, and the sequel Halloween II became "Halloween II: Il signore della morte" (=The Lord of the Death). Today hallowe'en is known and celebrated also in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.152.10 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. It's certainly pertinent here, because this is the film's country of origin. Anything that is directly related to this film that occurs in other countries is relevant here as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ there's another synonym in English for "Italian"?

Verification

[edit]

My apologies if it's already sourced (didn't see a reference right after the statement though) and I'm not doubting it, but is there a resource/citation to prove this to be true (in the opening paragraph):

The original draft of the screenplay was titled The Babysitter Murders.

? 69.129.170.102 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is properly sourced in the Production section. You can repeat statements in the intro without the citation, if properly sourced later in the article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of James Bulger

[edit]

The UK media is currently preoccupied with the Murder of James Bulger after one of the killers, Jon Venables, was recalled to prison. One new piece of information to emerge is that the 10-year-old Venables apparently produced a drawing inspired by the 1978 film Halloween, of which he said:"In my dads I saw howowen is when you a girl and this man and he kiled people especial girls and he has got a mask on that he robed knifes out the shop and the police that it was plce but it was not it was the man." [1] The alleged but generally discredited link with Child's Play 3 has received far more coverage, but this could be worth noting in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

[edit]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

I think the plot needs either some serious editing, or a do-over. The plot is not written in an encyclopedic style, and seems to be written by someone with not much writing experience. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Comodor (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible FAR

[edit]

I'm thinking of taking this article to FAR, seeing as how it's one of the older FACs and hasn't been reviewed since its nomination. I'm finding the references are inconsistent, I think all need to use one of the relevant citation templates, e.g. {{cite web}} {{cite book}} {{cite news}} {{cite journal}}, among others. Also there should be less references to the Internet Movie Database, as it's common knowledge they are of questionable reliability. And several references have broken external links, [2]. The television rights section is tagged with needing references, and I also believe the influences section can be expanded.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeded by/Proceeds

[edit]

I'm just now noticing this in a lot of the movie pages, but in the info box, didn't there use to be a piece at the bottom of the boxes that would say, for example, Proceeds: Halloween II, Proceeded by Halloween 4, or something of that nature? I used to be able to click on them and just smoothly go through the pages without having to go back and look for another link for the next movie in the series. Was there a policy change? Jeremyeyork (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox film#Preceded by/Followed by—"The 'Preceded by' and 'Followed by' parameters were removed on 16 February 2011." Sottolacqua (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First television airing

[edit]

It can't be correct that the first televising of Halloween was in October 1981, because I saw it on TV while attending a school which I attended from Oct 1978 to May 1981. I believe I saw it in the fall of 1980. Palmleaf (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. If you can find a reliable source for that, we could fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

I removed some original research from the article. It can come back, but it needs citations to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Cast Section

[edit]

This article is missing the section on the cast and characters, this should be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Halloween (1978 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) 02:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Myers Character Concept and Creation section

[edit]

As I have stated on the talk page for Michael Myers, that article is missing a large portion of information on the character's concept and creation which needs to be added to the article. A good portion of this information can be found in the articles on the different films in the series including this one. I have created a userspace in order to add these pieces of information separately before putting them into this article. Anyone willing to work on this would be fine by me. Here's the link to the page: User:Paleface Jack/Michael Myers (Halloween)/Concept and creation--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what does this even mean?

[edit]

"Several of Halloween's techniques and plot elements, although not founded in this film, have nonetheless become standard slasher movie tropes."?  Volunteer Marek  04:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's trying to say that the style of the film has been widely copied, which is true. However, it is using fancy language which may confuse the reader. We aren't writing a social sciences essay where there are bonus marks for using fancy jargon, so this should be reworded. It's also unclear whether this is an accurate summary of what the source says, or an WP:OR interpretation of it. Frankly, this sentence could go because it is too vague and unencyclopedic for the WP:LEAD. Plain language, please. I'm also concerned that this may be a shameless plug for the book involved in the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it's saying that some tropes weren't originated in this film, but Halloween popularized them. The exact page doesn't seem available on Google Books, but this chapter is. It seems to suggest that the film can't really be viewed in terms of slasher tropes because the genre didn't really exist yet. Instead, the author seems to be saying that Halloween borrowed some aspects from earlier films (such as Black Christmas), established some tropes, and popularized others, all while failing to adhere to some elements that would become slasher film cliches. This looks like an interesting book. It should probably be used further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about using Google Books as a source most of the time. Often you have to wade through many pages to find what the citation actually says, and there is a price in $$$ and a cart for buying the book. I'm not disputing that Halloween is an influential film, but both the wording and the sourcing need to be tightened up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is perfectly fine. The book is published by Columbia University Press. It should not have been removed. I hope you're not going around removing sources just because you dislike using Google Books. That would be highly disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm looking for here is a plain language sentence that is clearly supported by the sourcing given. I think that's what Volunteer Marek is looking for as well. The sentence that was removed doesn't make a great deal of sense. What are the "Several of Halloween's techniques and plot elements?" Too vague. Nor is it clear exactly how the sourcing supports this. I read through the chapter mentioned, but it doesn't say anything like what the sentence in the lead says. A person shouldn't use sources to make them say things that they don't clearly say, per WP:OR. The most obvious film that Halloween is parodying/referencing is Hitchcock's Psycho, even using Janet Leigh's daughter as the heroine. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, there's are pages visible in the Google Books preview that basically say what the text said; Halloween was not necessarily the inventor of all slasher tropes, but it was the one that became most famous for doing them, and the following films were directly influenced by it. This is also already in the article, and it wouldn't even need to be sourced in the lead. This book is a good source, though, and we should add it back. Your complaint that it's on Google Books is bizarre and carries no weight. The fact that the URL once had a link to buy it is also irrelevant; the URL can simply be removed. That doesn't make the book unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across people using large slabs of text from Google Books to support material in a way that is far from obvious, and this is a good example. While I've got nothing against using books as a source, the material has to be cited clearly. To get back on topic here, the sentence that Volunteer Marek complained about had sloppy and woolly wording. It needs to be replaced by something far clearer, and clearly supported by what the citation says.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Halloween (1978 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]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

[edit]

For the event, see Halloween. 

49.147.225.208 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per WP:NOTAMB. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

[edit]

The first paragraph says that a mental patient (Michael) is committed for “murdering his babysitting teenage sister.” However, there is nothing in the movie that shows, or even suggests, his sister (Judith) was a babysitter. She certainly wasn’t babysitting anyone in the movie. She wasn’t babysitting him; she was making out with her boyfriend and had no idea where Michael was. Her boyfriend asked if anyone else was home and she said Michael was around somewhere. They both just happened to be home at the same time. She clearly wasn’t paying any attention to him and had no idea where he was. There is no evidence in the script, or in any interviews of John Carpenter or Debra Hill, that Judith was tasked by her parents to babysit Michael while the parents were out, or that Judith ever had a career as a babysitter before her death. The description of Judith as a babysitter must be removed as there is no factual basis for it.GW2172 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) GW2172 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

[edit]

Change "center around" to "center on." 2603:8000:AB01:52C2:E5A4:73B4:588C:FBA1 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 14:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the budget with an inflation adjustment?

[edit]

Hello- the 300k budget (in 1977) for this film would be 1.4 million dollars in 2022 money. Does this information warrant inclusion or do we generally not include inflation adjustment's? I personally always google inflation adjustments when watching or reading something from a different time period. The 1.4 million dollar information would also be very interesting for any filmmakers reading the article. Thanks and cheers. (I used usinflationcalculator.com to calculate this). Onenightandonemoretime (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boogeyman in final scene

[edit]

Re this edit: there is a WP:TRANSCRIPTION problem here, because in the final scene, Laurie asks "Was it the boogeyman?" and Loomis replies "As a matter of fact, it was." However, the subtitles say "It was the bogeyman. As a matter of fact, it was." ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a video supporting her saying "It was the boogeyman" Deinonychus10 (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like Neil Armstrong saying "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." There is a very loud and compressed version of the audio from the final scene from Halloween here. Effectively, Laurie says "Was the boogeyman" and the word "it" is never spoken clearly, even if you listen to the audio at half speed, which you can do by clicking on the cog and selecting speed 0.5. We know that the screenplay says "It w̲a̲s̲ the Boogeyman" [3] but the word "it" is never spoken clearly on the film soundtrack, if at all. This seems to be the root cause of the disagreement.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halloween_(1978_film)&oldid=1251478388"