Talk:John Dies at the End (film)

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

starting out[edit]

A few questions for the draft:

Why isn't it a article yet. Per WP:NFF it should be ready. Was it AFD'd.
No, not AFD'd. The article was begun because the one sentence ending the section at Don Coscarelli#Biography was rather devoid of information. I added sourced info to THAT section,[1] and the section at John Dies at the End#Film adaptation has only slightly more info. While I could have put it in mainspace, I thought it prudent to get a neutral set of eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
I haven't really checked the sources quite yet. But one of the sources on the draft that supports the synopsis section right. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provide more... and your ability to glean what sources offer in expansion of article is respected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

A suggestion:

There is a whole lot of sources on the lead. Per WP:Lead sources shouldn't be necessary on the lead because it should sum up whatt's on the bottom. So the sources should probably be moved down below.
I agree... but when as a userspace draft, it's sometimes helpful to keep them all in one place until expansion of other sections merits the refs then being moved to the appropriate expanded section. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mo sources:[edit]

Newer sources to glean... ones either new since userfication OR older ones not already included... some fair... some okay.. some great:

Badass Digest (image)

Wow! Do you mind helping out a little bit. Because I am always preoccupied most of the time. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. Also busy. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And toward that end, perhaps we might invite User:TriiipleThreat to asist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed may new information with these sources. If there is they definitely need to be added. Also cast or crew interviews such as this and this could be nice. I might just inform TriiipleThreat. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the coverage above as I searched.. but yes, only a few gave new information which has now been added. Also I was able to glean a bit from the Giamatti interview. Nice find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fly in the bullet?[edit]

I wrote the plot section and I'm not sure whether this requires explaining but... did anyone understand exactly how that fly going into the bullet prevented the bullet from killing Dave? I know the fly was probably made of soy sauce, but... --uKER (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fly would have prevented a full load of gunpowder from being loaded into the bullet = less power when the bullet went off = less deadly when it hit Dave. 207.47.220.142 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)kuros_overkill[reply]

White stuff?[edit]

Anyone have any idea on what those "white flies" are supposed to be? They don't seem to be a product of the soy sauce, or are they? --uKER (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a reference to one of Korrok's minions in the book called "Shitload", but the movie doesn't provide any explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.249 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm adding White's "new name" to the plot. I had forgotten about that when I wrote it. --uKER (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Robert North?[edit]

Is he an alien? What were his interests in all of it? --uKER (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be an ambassador for his race, whatever that is. Like most of the characters in the movie, he probably ultimately only wanted safety for himself and his people. He had access to and knowledge about several important things, and knew about Dave and John, and so brought the leech to try to come into contact with them. After essentially failing at this, he instead manages to team up with Marconi and as such helps save the Earth, at least for now, which presumable means he saved his own as well. ... On a different note, isn't his first name Roger rather than Robert? Maybe you're confusing him with Robert Marley, another name for Bruce Matthews. Or maybe that's who you were referring to in the first place, in which case I have nothing else to say than to propose that Appleton might have been (probably accidentally) right, and actually single-handedly at least nearly caused the destruction of at least Earth. --Blaine, 10 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C000:1:6CE3:B100:EA73:9E98 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I removed a few extraneous citations. They weren't necessary, as the film itself can be used as a primary source for information like cast and crew. I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, but I'll try to remember to come back and move the newer citations to the bottom of the article. I really dislike citation lists, but that does seem to be the established style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cult film[edit]

The Variety citation was recently removed by an IP editor who said that I had misinterpreted the source. Anyway, if you look at the title of the Variety article, it clearly labels this as a "cult pic", which is Variety-style slang for "cult film". If there's some kind of problem with that citation, I can find different one, but I would need to see a good argument. Variety is one of the most reliable sources for film-related articles, and this is a quite explicit statement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to claim that Variety's content is unreliable, but do attention-seeking titles counts as realiable sources too? Source is, like, a week (!) after report about premiere. What "cult following" is could be talked at that stage? It sure could be used as a note about good audience receiving, but not about instant "cult". Cult part is just brings attention to pretty dry report by virtue of warping in director's status, nothing more, which is, as I can see on their site, untypical for Variety, but pretty much typical and neccesary on the internet. Besides, i'm pretty sure, that claims on cult status like that, would imply multiple sources, it is a heavy claim, and media, sadly, has a tendency to use it as cheap, one shot remark. 46.0.12.33 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're pretty much wrong on every count. We don't judge whether reliable sources are warranted in their statements based on our own subjective criteria, as this violates our policies on verifiability and original research. It also does not require multiple citations. You're simply moving the goal posts once you realized that you were wrong and had misinterpreted the source yourself. Regardless, I can find another source. You do need to stop removing reliable sources, though, as this is disruptive and can get you blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, the new source is not better, probably even worse, assigns cult even before premiere, which just logistically is not possible. And please, it's not subjective unless you are a time traveller. But if you want to hold onto local bureacracy, which defends laziness, so be it. Allow me at least fix wording to be more specific. 46.0.12.33 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fly bullet[edit]

the powder would be already loaded in the bullet shell before the fly entered the lead is the final step. Hd67x (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]