this is the seminal late-70s horror film that launched the slasher genre. as Tenebrae (film) went through FAC so successfully i feel this article, about a film from the same era and same genre, could do the same. what is best is that many of the sources are scholarly print publications, its not just rehashing material from the dozens of web fanpages. it also successfully avoids trivia, fancruft details and original research. article appears to be comprehensive, neutral and well-written (i copyedited).
-
Support per nom Zzzzz 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Why is Moustapha Akkad described simply as a financier. Even if he did the financing, wasn't he more important than that creatively ? Bwithh 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I added some additional information about Moustapha Akkad in the Sequels section. All the sources that I have seen give little (if any) credit to Akkad for creative contributions to the film, mostly just his role as financier and executive producer of the other films in the series. If you know of anything to the contrary, let me know. Dmoon1 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support per nom. --Myles Long 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comments I have some minor problems with the article All below concerns have been addressed:Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
The sentence: "The film is generally considered the first of a long line of slasher films inspired by Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)." While undoubtedly true, as written doesn't this contain weasel words? Shouldn't this say something like "Some critics have referred to the film as the first..." then have a link to at least one or two reliable sources saying that?
-
In the first paragraph, it reads that "Original drafts of the screenplay were titled Babysitter Murders" But in the "Production" section it says the title was discarded while Carpenter and Hill "began drafting a story". Which is it? If the latter, I think reference to the title should be removed from the lead, as its not an alternate title or early shooting title for the film.
-
"Direction" section: "Film critics contend that John Carpenter's directing and camera work made Halloween a "resounding success." This seems like pure POV/hyperbole to me. Does the referenced book actually say this? If so, sentence should read, "According to Nicholas Rogers, film critics contend that..."
-
"Reception" section: "Renowned critic Roger Ebert..." This seems like a pure POV-insert from an Ebert fan. How about just simple "Roger Ebert"?
-
I used "renowned" just to emphasize that Ebert is considered an important critic. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I understand that, but after all your recent edits the only thing that still rubs me the wrong way about your otherwise fine article is referring to Ebert as "renowned". It really seems completely POV to me...what makes Ebert more "renowned" than, say, Vincent Canby, who also wrote extremely favorable things about Carpenter's film in the New York Times?Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I guess that I put renowned also because most people would recognize Ebert's name over others' like Canby, regardless, I removed "renowned". Dmoon1 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Ebert won a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. Ebert can be seen by anybody in the US with a TV set, being on a major network (and also an occasional guest on late night talk shows). Renowned may not be quite the right word, but award-winning and well-known is quite true. Шизомби 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I just don't think its encyclopedic to qualify Ebert in that way. Yes, it is true he's well known--I'm not arguing that he isn't famous. If, as you say, he can be seen by "everybody in the US with a TV set", then it really doesn't need to be said that he is well known, does it? It seems very POV to specifically say "Famous/Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Roger Ebert..." For any young film fan who reads the article and doesn't know who Ebert is, they can click on his link and read the wikipedia article on him for the details of his career. I also think it would be just as POV to refer to Pauline Kael as "Influential (or National Book Award-winning) film critic Pauline Kael", or to Donald Pleasence as "Beloved character actor Donald Pleasance". True statements, but not encyclopedic. Hal Raglan 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
"Reception" section: "Once-dismissive critics were impressed by the simplicity of the film's camera work and music and surprised by the lack of blood, gore, and graphic violence." Is this saying that critics who had originally given the film a negative response changed their minds ("once-dismissive critics")? The linked review says no such thing, and I certainly don't recall this happening. Also, the sentence indicates these same "once-dismissive" critics were impressed by the "simplicity of the film's camera work". I've never heard this before; I seem to remember many reviews being impressed by the relatively stylish widescreen cinematography. Again, the linked review indicates that the music was "simple and unsophisticated" but says no such thing about Dean Cundey's camera work.
-
This is referring to the fact that serious critics did not bother to even review the film until The Village Voice wrote a positive review--hence they were "dismissive." Clarified "simplicity" quote. Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
"Criticism" section: "Negative reviews by film critics of the early 1980s are near impossible to come by.." I don't like the way this is phrased at all. First, the film was released in 1978, so why the reference to reviews by critics of the early 1980s? Second, its not near impossible at all to find negative reviews: Pauline Kael hated the film, and Cinefantastique's original review of the film was extremely negative. McCall's called the movie "sick". I'm sure there are others. I'd rewrite to something like, "The film received a mostly positive critical response at the time of its intial release..."Hal Raglan 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Thanks for these references. Incorporated Kael's review (having trouble finding Cinefantastique and McCall's online--I'll keep looking). Dmoon1 02:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I think the Kael quote is probably enough to balance things out. The Cinefantastique review probably isn't online, but if you are interested its from the Forbidden Planet double issue, Vol 8 No. 2/Vol 8 No. 3, pg 73, written by Dave Schow. From the review: "...Halloween broaches intriguing twists on standard themes, only long enough to abandon them for obvious and easy climaxes. Though Dark Star really didn't get any careers off to flying starts, Carpenter's "apprenticeship" in film is taking too long."Hal Raglan 03:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support - One other comment, tho. Take a look at Casablanca and my own Tenebrae and see how the references have been formatted. During the peer review/featured article candidate stage for my article, it was recommended that I use that new format; after making the change, I have to admit it looks better. Just a suggestion.Hal Raglan 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support. Fine article. One style nit: (===Casting===) I hate the sentence "Laurie's other promiscuous friend, Lynda Van Der Klok..." It's clunky as an introduction of the character but I'm not sure how to revise and keep in the promiscuous part. Fuhghettaboutit 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support Circeus 18:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support Great article, not too bloated and easy to read. --Osbus 00:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support Very well done. Cvene64 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Support definitely, and suggest this could be used as template for other film FAs. Marskell 22:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
