Darkwarriorblake

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Total Recall (1990 film), "about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce."! - As it happens, today is the 15th anniversary of my first DYK, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your boundless enthusiasm and efforts Gerda Arendt, congratulations on your anniversary! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Hello Darkwarriorblake, Sorry about the recent string of failed Featured articles. I think your work is of the highest quality and hope the beast in all these articles that have failed to get up to snuff for the reviewers. Anyways, I have used your extensive expansions on culturally significant films as a basis for my most intensive and ambitious expansion projects expanding the article on the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. So far, I have kept the edits in a separate userspace to refine and expand everything within my own time for later (and gradual) transference at a later date. I know 70s films do not stretch within your usual range of articles, however, I was wondering if you would be interested in working on it with me or, at the very least add some imput/advice. Please note: The current state is quite long and I plan on splitting it into separate articles to cut down on the length but that will be whe I can figure out what to include and what not to include in the main space. Best of luck on your endeavors and if you need a hand with gathering information dont hesitate to message me. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Paleface Jack, it has been frustrating as progress has been very slow, during Covid I was getting many more articles both completed and passed, whereas I think this year I've only managed the 1 while others are getting knocked back either for no participation or just difficult people. With all those Covid restrictions gone I don't have as much free time at work to pump these out else I probably would've considered going on to the 70s as I completed the 2000s+, but completing the 2000s+ seems a million miles away now. I've taken a look at your work and it looks good, the amount of books you've read for it is insane, I don't know how you find the time, great job there. It all looks fairly solid, I'm not sure I can add much, but I'll keep an eye on it and add things where I can if it's any use. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Coming from you, I appreciate it. Lot of that stuff was from one of the foreign language Wikipiedias, where it was already FA. More details on the design and other things were just gleaned from my own research. It is fine if you feel you cannot add much. I believe contributions big and small are great. This film has a lot more influence than I realized and I feel it definitely should have been added to AFI, though I get the controversy if it were to be included. Article length, though I somewhat agree with the word limit, can also be a detriment cause I am an avid reader and love long film-related articles. In terms of 2000's films what other ones are you considering besides those on your userpage? Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I find the 2000s pretty hard, if you look at the top films of each year it's all Harry Potter, Transformers, and Lord of the Rings, or Avatar, and I just wasn't into any of those. Like 2003 in film, there's not a film among those top 10 I care about much enough to work on in any significant capacity. Compare that to 1987, when you have Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Predator, Spaceballs, Full Metal Jacket, The Lost Boys, Masters of the Universe, The Running Man, Prince of Darkness, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, hell I even have a soft spot for Mannequin and Throw Momma from the Train. It might be because I'm a child of the 80s and 90s, so I'm really not sure where to go there. The 2010s has a few more options like Fury Road, but yeah the 2000s weren't a great time for films I'd consider classics personally. I know if I ever get to 2020 that'll be a struggle because virtually nothing came out because of Covid and what did come out I'm pretty meh on. Crank High Voltage in 2009 is fun, but I don't think it's something you'd find enough content on for a Featured Article. I was gonna do Inglorious Basterds for 2009 since it was the last film I watched with my dad, but I recently tried rewatching it and found it pretty boring, so I'll see. I did look at V for Vendetta or Constantine but I think they're both the same year and might be hard to work on, and I'm looking for some easier, quick wins right now. I was gonna do The Matrix for 1999, for example, but I've been rewatching the American Pie series lately and I actually really enjoyed it, so now I'm thinking to focus on that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of options, prominent movies does not always need to be the case. Dinosaur is, in my opinion, an underrated classic that has a lot of technical innovation behind it. For me 2005 is pretty easy with Peter Jackson's King Kong, that film will forever be my personal favorite and one of the best. I could go on about a bunch of others but I would just sounds like a madman. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:I don't know if you would have any ideas about this, but I recently come across a complicated situation with the Texas Chain Saw revion. Some information suggests the box office numbers available online are not accurate and (unfortunately) will probably never be definitively pinned down. The reason being, the film's distributers were tied to organized crime and flubbed the numbers (and cooked the financial reciepts) so they did not have to pay those involved with the making of the film any money (makers and cast were payed in a percentage of the film's box office that they never recieved). Estimates are anywhere between $40 to $100 million. The reason I am saying all this is I dont know how to properly add that to the article, do I mention it in the box office section or do I place it in the Litigation section?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Paleface Jack, I'd look at maybe Batman Returns and Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Batman Returns in particular has a budget all over the place. In terms of discussing the flubbed numbers, you can say something like "The budget for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is estimated to be between $40 million and $100 million. The figures are unclear because the mafia connections behind the film were later found to have deliberately released inaccurate figures to avoid paying residuals, etc." If some of this falls under litigation, you could briefly mention something like "the figures are disputed because of mafia connections" and then discuss it in detail in the litigation section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry you meant the box office, but same advice applies. Aliens has a very large box office gap for instance though not for reasons as untowards as on TCSM Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your Starship Troopers nomination

Just wanted to give you a heads up, some of your citations on your Starship Troopers article are out of order when you cite some of them. I don't know if that will be an issue when people review it but I thought you should know. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Rationale for reversion?

As my edit summary described, random photos of cast members is not desireable; see any movie article that has many readers and editors who routinely watch them. Most of this IP user's edits have been reverted by others. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What research did you conduct to evidence "random photos of cast members is not desireable"? You removed images from a Featured Article, and it passed Featured Article in that state, you need to properly justify your actions, not me. Lots of quality articles have images. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm going by what is most common in film articles. Generally speaking, keeping article consistent in format is desireable. Dumping large blocks of photos of celebrities, not related to the production (as opposed to, for example, cast pressers, location shots, etc), and often at wildly different ages from when they appeared in the film, isn't necessary and is unhelpful to the reader. Images in articles are desireable - large clusters of various cast members - not even in order of their prominence in the film (and including bit players) isn't good visually. If you review other prominent articles about films, you'll find typically only a photo of the lead actor and possibly the director - if even that. Most articles don't employ random photos of the cast.

I wasn't aware that SPR was in that stage when it was a features article, and I agree that my edit there wasn't appropriate. I'll take greater care to assess the article's status and prominence before removing in other articles.

It would be helpful if you used an edit summary to explain edits. I wouldn't have had to come here and ask about it if it had such a summary. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean you're acting like you know what you're doing and saying that you're basing your actions on other articles not having images, and yet your edit history is you going through articles taking out images that people have put in? So maybe re-examine what you're doing before arguing with me about what images to use. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If you go through my edit history, you'll see that I've been reverting one IP editor who's been on a campaign to add these large blocks of images. One editor, singular. And if you review that editor's history, you'll that that multiple editors have reverted these additions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Then how have you ended up at Saving Private Ryan? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The IP had made edits to the article, but hadn't added the images. I skipped ahead without checking. As I said, I take responsibility for that error. I think it's petty to just mass revert all my edits summarily, but whatever. I'll start discussions on the article talk pages. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't mass reverted them, I reverted the ones that looked normal until I noticed that the images seemed to have been added recently by the same Ip. So there is confusion on both ends but editing Saving Private Ryan exacerbated that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, I F'd up with that edit, no question. SPR is one of my all-time favorite movies, I was careless. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent ping

BTW, if you have zero interest in this discussion, feel free to bow out. Just hate for the project to lose another FA article, although it is in serious need of some tidying up. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Batman Returns

Look, sir: the best way to contribute without having to sabotage as you are doing, is to help me in this case. I am telling you this in good faith. How can you possibly claim that what I do is not constructive? I bet that you did not even take the trouble or the trouble to consult the sources that I myself seek to prevent you from ruining my edition. I am not vandalizing anything. It is obvious that what you express to me in your messages is pure arrogance, so much so that I will not edit that article again so as not to lower myself to that level. JeanMercier90 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

If I hadn't checked the sources, I wouldn't know they credit IMDB or that they're blogs. Reverting edits when an issue has been raised isn't acceptable behaviour so I don't really think you're in a great position to criticize me for undoing the damage you are doing to the article. Not all websites are acceptable, blogs are not, listicles are not because they're hardly ever researched they're just there for clickbait and to work the google algorithm, and sites getting their information from IMDb or WIkipedia are not, and that was all your sources. Literally the only useful one, having looked at them all, is maybe this one, and a better source would still be preferred. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the Catwoman article, someone has added a bunch of actress names who were potentially considered for Catwoman, all sourced to this article which doesn't list any of them at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I see, I repeat that you did not check my sources. I know which page is a blog and which is IMDB. My editing doesn't damage anything, especially if I have sources that you don't look at. Leave your arrogance, at least I will dedicate myself to other articles and matters. Good luck. JeanMercier90 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I literally just said I checked your sources. I didn't say you sourced IMDb, I said your sources, such as barstoolsports, say at the bottom that they got all their information from IMDb. I also said that similarly, the information you happen to be adding at Batman Returns was also added, unsourced to the Catwoman article. No credible sites back up what you are claiming. I checked your sources and they weren't quality sources, that's the end of it. One chunk of names you added had no source at all, but we wouldn't mention every person who was ever looked at for a role anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)