Talk:Halloween (2018 film)

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

Explanations?[edit]

Why would a super powerful, super natural being hell bent on killing Laurie Strode would 40 years to escape? How was he captured? At the end of Halloween he disappeared.

On another note why would a sequel to Halloween be called Halloween, why not Halloween II? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1E02:C05D:E132:24BA:BDFC:AE2E (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Efron[edit]

Zac Efron is not in this film. "Reps for Efron doubly confirm it's just a fun throwback photo and does not indicate he's in the Halloween movie" GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

For the sake of copyright attribution, it should be noted that the first two paragraphs of Development are a modified version of the section Halloween (franchise)#Future (November 2017 revision). DarkKnight2149 02:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting[edit]

Per verifiablity, please show where Nick Castle and the other actor are being credited as "The Shape". Otherwise, per verifiability, that will be removed from the article. The only source that mentions "The Shape" is reference Castle returning to the role, which was originally credited as in the 1978 film. No source uses The Shape for current credit, and all reference the character simply as 'Michael Myers' in every source, including the one that talks about the original role, afterward.

To quote from the sources in the article: "Bloody Disgusting learned and exclusively confirmed that actor, director, and screenwriter, Nick Castle, will return to the role of Michael Myers." --- "the film has cast the original “Shape” actor Nick Castle as Michael Myers."

The only statement that references the Shape is this: "The killer known simply as “The Shape” will be returning 40 years later to finish the job." -- That has nothing to do with the credit given to the actors, as every source says "they are playing Michael Myers."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"That has nothing to do with the credit given to the actors" - None of what any of the sources have said has anything to do with the credit given to the actors. Michael Myers is just what he is most commonly referred to as in general.
What we do know is that the Bloody-Disgusting article was an Exclusive (meaning that all of the other sources were reporting off of that article), they referred to him as both The Shape and Michael Myers ("The killer known simply as “The Shape” will be returning 40 years later to finish the job." isn't referring to the original film), and that he was referred to as "The Shape" once again in this subsequent report that isn't even about the Nick Castle casting.
Given that reliable sources have referred to the character by both names and none of them state what his credit will be, we should list both names until we know otherwise, per WP:V (which you named). DarkKnight2149 20:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all. You're distorting what they are saying. The only time you see that is from the headline (not sources using both names), and they are clearly just referring to Castle. Michael Myers hasn't been absent for 40 years, Castle has. That's why it says "the Shape" is returning, because Castle was originally credited as "The Shape". Afte that, there is no interchanging of names. They clearly, repeatedly say, Castle will be playing Michael Myers. There is no source that says they will be using the name "The Shape" in any sort of credit. Even IMDb, who overthinks everything when a film is just starting to be made and takes all kinds of rumors, isn't taking this bait. They even list Castle as just Michael Myers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is you who is misinterpreting the statement. The statement was clearly referring to the character, as it says "The killer known simply as 'The Shape' will be returning 40 years later to finish the job." The killer would be Michael Myers, unless Nick Castle has also offed a few people (which I highly doubt), and "finish the job" most likely refers to his intentions with Laurie after her escape in the original.
"There is no source that says they will be using the name "The Shape" in any sort of credit." And, again, there is no source stating that he will be credited as "Michael Myers" either. This is a sit back and wait scenario.
"Castle was originally credited as "The Shape". Afte that, there is no interchanging of names." - Actually, Halloween II (which did not feature Nick Castle) also credited the character as "The Shape". There have been other forms of media, such as his adaptation in Dead by Daylight, that have used that name as well. And, if I'm not mistaken, Sam Loomis at one point also described Michael Myers as a "mere shape of a man". So "The Shape" obviously applies to the character and not just Nick Castle's portrayal of the character.
"Michael Myers hasn't been absent for 40 years..." - This is a direct sequel to the 1979 original, so Michael Myers probably has been absent for 40 years. DarkKnight2149 23:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that that is a headline and it is meant to grab your attention. The use of "The Shape" is literally about referencing Nick Castle. It isn't about Michael Myers the character, because Michael Myers (regardless of canon) HAS been around in the last few years. They are referring to Castle, who has NOT been around this franchise. No where else do they use that statement. That's because no where else do they make the assumption that he'll be listed as "The Shape". You said that it doesn't state he will be Michael, it literally says "Nick Castle will be playing Michael Myers". It doesn't say "Nick Castle will be playing 'The Shape'". You are taking a SINGLE source's HEADLINE and using to source the crediting of the article, when NO OTHER SOURCE says that. They all say the same thing "Nick Castle will be playing Michael Myers". You're trying to argue the abscene of a statement as validation for the existence of something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that is another false equivalency, as that statement is not the headline. The headline is "Original Shape Actor Playing Michael Myers in ‘Halloween’ 2018! [Exclusive]". If that was it, you would have a point. But the sentence "The killer known simply as “The Shape” will be returning 40 years later to finish the job" is not a headline but a character synopsis used not only in that article, but in subsequent news reports not relating to Nick Castle as well. It's not any different from the character synopsis for Laurie Strode, "Jamie Lee Curtis returns to her iconic role as Laurie Strode, who comes to her final confrontation with Michael Myers, the masked figure who has haunted her since she narrowly escaped his killing spree on Halloween night four decades ago." This is also from Bloody-Disgusting, a site known for getting character and plot details for upcoming horror films (and also repeating them multiple times in later articles). You wouldn't believe how many times they repeated the same synopsis sentence about "A killer is using Jigsaw's M.O. But Jigsaw has dead for ten years. How can this be?" (slightly paraphrasing for the sake of copyright) in every article related to Jigsaw (2017). DarkKnight2149 00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the very source you are pulling from: "As we previously reported, actor, director, and screenwriter, Nick Castle, will return to the role of Michael Myers, while stunt performer and actor James Jude Courtney has also been cast to play Myers!" -- Notice how they clearly say, "the role of Michael Myers", not "the role of 'The Shape'". Given that Castle wasn't originally credited as "The Shape/Michael Myers", but only "The Shape", you'd think that if your argument held true then they would use that name when identifying his role. It isn't like someone else wasn't credited as "Michael Myers" in the 1978 film. We're not talking about Betsy Palmer playing "Mrs. Voorhees", with other actresses playing "Pamela Voorhees" because they didn't give her a first name until later. It's very cut and dry, all sources, when identifying Nick Castle's role, clearly state "will be playing Michael Myers". "The Shape" is nowhere to be seen when actually given attribution to the actor.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we're going in circles here. It has already been pointed out that "Michael Myers" is what the character is most commonly known as in general, and none of the sources state or imply what the official credits will say. For all we know, it will be similar to the original film where Castle will be credited as 'The Shape' (again) and Courtney will be 'Michael Myers'. Then again, Courtney could just be the stunt double. We're going to have to wait.
"It's very cut and dry, all sources, when identifying Nick Castle's role, clearly state "will be playing Michael Myers"." - And again, most of the other sources were reporting off of the Bloody-Disgusting source. When there is no confirmation on who will be credited as what, it's only natural that they would use the most common name. What we do know is that the original source referred to the character as both Michael Myers and The Shape, and that's all we have to go on right now.
"We're not talking about Betsy Palmer playing "Mrs. Voorhees", with other actresses playing "Pamela Voorhees" because they didn't give her a first name until later." - No, but in the films and media where "The Shape" has been used, 'The Shape' is usually an identifier in regards to the masked killer, with 'Michael Myers' going to the man or boy underneath the mask.
"It's very cut and dry..." - At the moment, nothing is cut and dry. You appear to be making assumptions on what the credit will be based on sources using the character's most commonly known name the most, which is nothing out of the ordinary. All we know is that the source that released the scoop referred to the character as both names in regard to the upcoming film, and they have done so again in subsequent reports. DarkKnight2149 04:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this whole discussion premature. Two actors have been cast and it is not clear which iteration Castle will be playing. I kind of suspect he'll be playing the unmasked version (i.e. Michael Myers) which will need to be some old dude (a'la Return of the Jedi#Cast), and I would be very surprised if he plays the masked version (i.e. The Shape) doing all the action sequences. However, at this stage the cast section is basically just about letting readers know who is in the film and we shouldn't be locking down something that is not known for certain. Bearing that in mind the status quo seems like an acceptable compromise until we get more information. Once the official literature starts being released the section can be formalised. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intention isn't to claim which iteration of the character each actor is playing. As mentioned earlier, we have to wait for some sort of confirmation in regards to that. At the moment, all we have to go on is that the original scoop referred to the character as both "The Shape" and "Michael Myers" (hence why both names are listed), and that two actors are playing the character with no further elaboration. As for the specifics, we just have to wait. If Courtney turns out to merely be a stuntman or "The Shape" isn't used, this can all be adjusted. For now, we just have to go where the sources take us without jumping the gun. DarkKnight2149 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: There's also this, which just adds fuel to fire in terms of keeping "The Shape" in the article for the time being. DarkKnight2149 23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update #2: On the same Twitter, Nick Castle revealed that his casting chair during filming says "The Shape". This probably means that will also be what he is credited as. DarkKnight2149 01:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many block quotes?[edit]

TheMovieGuy converted quite a few of the quotes in the article into block quotes. With some of the longer ones, that is understandable but I can't help but wonder if there are too many that use this format. Thoughts - Are all of them necessary for this formatting? DarkKnight2149 17:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Tagging everyone: @TheMovieGuy: @Betty Logan: @Bignole: @Paleface Jack: @SeraphWiki: @GeoffreyT2000: @GnomeSweetGnome:[reply]

The previous layout was superior. The new layout looks horrendous IMO. Using the "quote" template for these quotes is completely unnecessary here; it is generally intended for quotes that cannot be easily incorporated into prose such as passages from poems. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, generally shouldn't be used for very long quotes that should be summarized and placed in the body naturally. I would say get rid of most. Use them sparingly, and where they will enhance the text next to them instead of detract.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i figured i used too many. I dont think we should toss ALL of them... Just some of them... TheMovieGuy

Conversion seems to be what's necessary.--Paleface Jack 20:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You guys are fa&&ots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.18.11 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2018[edit]

Can we PLEASE remove the entire plot breakdown? It spoils the film for the vast majority of people and could potentially hurt the performance of the film. 2A00:23C5:471C:3D00:DCBE:6402:200B:2829 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: we don't remove spoilers per Wikipedia:Spoiler --Danski454 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--

With all due respect, if you don't want to be spoiled, simply avoid the plot summary. You could argue the same thing for any movie that you haven't seen, whether it's been released or not. Valenka (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018[edit]

All references to Michael and Laurie being brother and sister need to be removed. Chaos9001 (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Perhaps the Andi Matichak character was mis-informed? Maybe her parents lied to her to protect her from this family relation? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

warning[edit]

Hi, I'm the one who translate this article in italian, please if you make important changes let me know in my italian profile. Thank you --Binco91 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Jefferson Hall[edit]

It should be Jefferson Hall (actor). 162.156.63.243 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Halloween (2018 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lirim.Z (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has been sitting for a while, reviewing in the next two days.--Lirim | Talk 13:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox[edit]

  • Is there a reason you only have one source in the lead?
information Note: See WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:LEADCITE - Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free media information and use rationale looks good

Plot[edit]

  • No issues

Cast[edit]

  • No issues

Production[edit]

  • Nevertheless, two days after its release The Weinstein Company -> missing a comma
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • franchise in the 2010's Weinstein insisted -> missing a comma
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carpenter said that he was impressed with the pitch presented by the co-writers, solicited by Jason Blum, proclaiming that "They get it." -> Qoute needs a ref
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

  • All music is composed by John Carpenter, Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies.; Tracklist and lenght -> Ref needed
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

  • No issue

Reception[edit]

  • The ref states that the movie grossed $255.6 million, an additional 130k from a 2020 re-release
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worldwide, it earned more than around $100 million -> did it earn more or around?
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels[edit]

References[edit]

  • Linking is super inconsistent, sometimes you link to stuff, you write websites different in refs
  • Ref 4: Yahoo Sports; same ref as Ref 34, qoute not really needed
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6: CINEMABLEND -> Cinemablend MOS:Caps
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15, 30, 39, 40, 43, 57, 69, 88, 93, 95, 108,: Bloody Disgusting -> Bloody Disgusting; You link to the website in Ref 43, 55, 57, , but in no other, why? Also is it written with ! or without?
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: Has no work/publisher
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - It's one word. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - It's one word. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: (–) not (-)
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - It's one word. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 44: Add the author
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: Add the author, link to JoBlo
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: Author, has no work/publisher
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47: Work and author
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 58, 60, 63: Halloween Daily or Halloweendailynews.com?
 Done Changed to Halloween Daily News. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 71: {{Template:cite tweet}}
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 74: {{Template:Cite instagram}}
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 76: lastname, surname
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 83: lastname, surname, remove that (CONTRIBUTER)
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 89: Has no work/publisher
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90: (–) not (-), has no work/publisher
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 101: (–) not (-), has no work/publisher
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: Has no work/publisher, missing author
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 114: Author
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 118: Author
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - It's one word. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I saw, also sometimes you link to the publishers for the sources, sometimes not — The references are very inconsistent, but not a reason to fail a very good article. I grant you seven days to fix the minor issue in the article and basically all the refs.--Lirim | Talk 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lirim.Z: All done with these 22 edits. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed one little mistake. Happy to pass this article. — Lirim | Talk 17:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lirim.Z: Thanks for passing the article but I've noticed you missed some steps from WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Passing, such as editing the talk page and adding the film to WP:Good articles/Media and drama#Film. Additionally, though its appreciated, it's better to let the bot add the "good-article-symbol" to the page rather than adding it manually. Just wanted to let you know. Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lirim.Z: Since it's been about an hour since I left my comment above (and since you "thanked me" for it), I just wanted to know if you were planning to finish the review today? Some Dude From NCwanna talk? 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halloween_(2018_film)&oldid=1207521573"