![]() | Black Christmas (2006 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 4, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Amol Shah 19:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC):::
Not so much as a summary as a play by play. WAY to long for a movie whose plot was not that involved. s Let's shorten down the summary some, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.184.4 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She plays Britney Soring and will be killed in the movie [1]
Never mind. She only appears in the original cut.
What you mean by original cut? That's the 1974 verson. Mya wasnt even a gleam in her parents eye yet. Unless of course you mean the fact that they made 4 different versions to this flick. Man, I can't wait for the dvd.74.195.3.11 18:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/CrystalLoweBlackXmas.jpg
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h8/oneshyguy46/Laceydead.jpg
why cant I put these two pictures to be seen on the website???
I was reading through that section and noticed that the fact that Glen Morgan either wrote/produced or directed any Final Destination film is mentioned at least three separate times, as well as the fact that he is married to one of the actresses, Cloke, being mentioned at least twice throughout.
I didn't want to go in and remove some of the instances myself since other editors tend to revert that (a feeling of being overly possessive and territorial in regard to articles they edit I suppose) so addressing it here for consideration by the collective editors who have interest in this article to consider revising as they see fit. 75.2.6.207 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who asked you? Just ignore it. I did.74.195.3.11 20:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what happened to the spoiler that included all the deaths? i read it earlier tonight but now i can't find it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.101.130 (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I added one. But why do people delete it?
Its deleted for the simple reason that it is just rehashing what the plot tells. Also death lists (the F13 series and the FD series excepted due to the emphasis on deaths and not plot) are very unencyclopediac (especially in list form) and should not be in Wiki. Jamesbuc
Are both really neccessary? ONEder Boy 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, WTF is with that "plot" - that aint no plot, it's the whole dang script!! 220.238.131.240 16:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone counted how many times the word "fuck" was used in this film? At least 20, I think. Maybe much, much more.
Why does it matter? If you think 20 is alot, go check out Blair Witch Project. It's said at least 133 times. But, why do you care, 20 is very little compared to how some films are.
I'm going to fix up the trivia section, the spelling and grammar in it is deplorable. I'm not going to look for errors in the other sections, so that's up to you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.149 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a section where we can post the differences from the original here? It'll be way useful, but I'm not sure of all of the differences, so I'd like to know if there'd be some assistance with me posting this. StupidityxLEAK (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Khe Sanh element is not developed at all. Why is there so much emphasis on the Raveonettes poster with Peter Lorre on it? Varlaam (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The production section in this article is way too short and only gives very few information on the film's production, this should be expanded in more detail with more information added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Christmas (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding unsourced claims that the film has been "disowned". Also, Wikipedia does not pronounce films as a success or failure; we merely report how much money that they grossed. It is original research to characterize a film as a success, and it is likely original research to characterize the reviews as positive or negative based on your own interpretation of a Rotten Tomatoes score. Instead, we should flatly state the facts of the matter without interpreting the data. I don't understand why we would even need to interpret a review aggregator; the whole point of using Rotten Tomatoes is that they've already interpreted the data for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree NRP. Been finding a lot of those kind of things in different articles lately and I keep on having to delete them.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Black Christmas (2006 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is looking great, although it would be nice to see the original film get this much love and attention as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost GA ready. Just a few things that need to be added. I've noticed that this article doesn't have any information on Robert Mann, the actor who portrays Billy Lenz. I also think that there needs to be some interviews from the actors/actresses from the film added to this article as well as it's mostly comprised of interviews with the director. If this information is available then it should be included. All in all this is looking more and more GA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GA toolbox |
---|
|
Reviewing |
|
Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the original Black Christmas, curiously made in both the infancy not only of slasher films but of the Cinema of Canada in general. So I'm kind of interested in reviewing.
1a
In the second para of the lede, it seems we already have too many sentences starting with "The film". "director Morgan" can simply be "Morgan"; same goes with Wong.
Plot- "Billy gets Constance pregnant"- if he was raped, it seems funny to say he did it. "She becomes pregnant". "decapitated head"- "severed head".
Production- "signed on to co-produced"- "signed on to co-produce". Incoherence in Casting: "previously the same year"? 1b
Violation of WP:FILMLEAD- rather than Canadian-American in the first sentence, maybe say a little later in the lede "A co-production of Canada and the United States". Accolades is simply too small to be a table or even a section of its own. I'd simply include the mention of the nomination, in prose form, in the Critical reception section. Should "Additional photography" header be removed and that material included in Studio Intervention, since the Weinsteins (blech) supervised it? Desson Thomson can be linked in Reception. "It's no Scream"- why isn't Scream (1996 film) linked?
4. The fake "Release date controversy" is handled as neutrally as possible as a fake controversy can be handled.
5. No edit wars.
6. Poster is attributed, photos are free.
March 3 Followup Drown Soda, we're close now, and there's some good scholarship here, including digging up info on Edmund Kemper who I'd never heard of before. I've tracked down the AV refs to followup on 2c. Outstanding issues: Ribbet32 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]